Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Mr. Secretary Lang presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to British Railways (No. 2): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 15 March, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Mr. Secretary Lang presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to British Railways (No. 3): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 15 March, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Manufacturing Investment

Mr. Cran: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average investment per employee per annum in manufacturing in the period from 1987 to 1991.

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): During the period 1987–91, investment per employee in manufacturing averaged £2,700.

Mr. Cran: Despite progress, does my right hon. Friend agree with the aims of the National Manufacturing Council for the need to double investment in the next few years? Does he further agree that there has never been any excuse for investment such as our competitors achieve, because of the increased level of profitability that this country has had under this Conservative Government and the previous one?

Mr. Heseltine: I very much welcome the work of the National Manufacturing Council of the CBI and am much encouraged by the ambitious targets that it has set. I agree that the present economic statistics are as favourable as I can remember.

Mr. Cousins: Does not the President of the Board of Trade realise that the figures for investment per employee depend on the number of employees? Is he saying, therefore, that the 600 Pirelli workers in the cable factory

at Eastleigh, who lost their jobs last year because there was no house building to support their cable production, were part of a cunning plan to improve British statistics?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that a major change is going on as British industry achieves higher levels of productivity. He would serve his country far better if he recognised the need to do that, and stopped making ridiculous party political points out of the exercise.

Mr. Jenkin: In promoting investment, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his speech last week in which he complained of Euro-sclerosis? Is not Euro-sclerosis bad for British investment? Will he join me in congratulating our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on maintaining the blocking minority in the Council of Ministers to stop damaging legislation coming—

Madam Speaker: Order. That does not relate one jot to the main question. The President will reply to the first part of the question, please.

Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his reference to the Stockton lecture that I gave last week. It is vital that the whole of the Community addresses the issue of competitiveness. From that we will all gain.

Small Firms (Interest Rates)

Mr. Hain: T: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average rate of interest on loans from financial institutions to small firms and the average period for repayment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The most recent Bank of England study shows that the average margin over base rates is slightly under 3 per cent. for businesses with a turnover of less than £10 million. For term loans, 26 per cent. were repayable over a period of up to five years, and the remainder over longer periods with 15 per cent. repayable over periods exceeding 20 years.

Mr. Hain: It is difficult to reconcile the daily experience of small firms with the Minister's answer, because they are being strangled by short-term loans at prohibitively high interest rates that do not appear to bear any relation to the base rate. Why do not the Government establish new joint ventures with the financial institutions and the banks to provide long-term, low-cost finance, like our more successful competitor countries? Or is he happy to perpetuate the curse of the British economy— short-termism?

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman prepared his supplementary question before he heard the answer. What we have seen, and what the answer shows, is that many of the long-term loans are taken out on favourable conditions. We currently have the lowest base rate for some 20 years —5.5 per cent. That is welcomed by British industry.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: While one recognises the present very low base rates and low rates of inflation, which can only be good for investment intentions for small and other companies, does my hon. Friend recognise that there is a demand among smaller companies for longer-term, non-equity finance? In that regard, will he


accept our congratulations on the new venture capital trusts and ensure that those trusts look at amounts below £2 million, which will be relevant for smaller firms?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He rightly points out some of the schemes that have been taken forward—and, indeed, some that were announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent Budget statement.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that as businesses benefit from the recovery, their ability to repay loans can be inhibited, because they are being squeezed by large companies by which they are owed money but which are slow in repaying it? What progress are the Government making towards presenting firm—as opposed to general—proposals to ensure that companies are not prevented from paying their debts because their customers do not pay them?

Mr. McLoughlin: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are currently consulting about the problem of late debt payments. Overall, our information suggests that the position may not be as bad as it was, but I accept that it is a serious issue. Once our consultations are concluded, we shall announce our considered opinion.

Animal Traps

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many animal traps were exported from the United Kingdom in each of the last three years.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): The information requested is not available from official sources.

Mr. Banks: May I remind the Minister that in this country we still manufacture snares—which slaughter large numbers of wild animals—and leg traps? I know that the Minister is an animal lover; is it not inconsistent that leg traps, whose use is illegal in this country, should be exported, and will he close that loophole?

Mr. Needham: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He will know, however, that the Department of Trade and Industry is not responsible for the design of animal traps, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that the Department of the Environment is responsible for United Kingdom policy within the European Union. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friends in those Departments.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in many parts of the world, rodents and other pests cost countries immense amounts of money, and also have a tremendous impact on food sources? Is it not good, therefore, that British manufacturers are supplying equipment to deal with the problem?

Mr. Needham: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I understand, however, that there are no significant exports of such traps from this country.

Gas Industry

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the regulation of the gas industry.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): Together with the Office of Gas Supply, I will shortly issue a consultation paper on the future regulation of the gas industry.

Mr. Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that, for a little more than 10 years, British Gas has operated a domestic meter replacement programme, which has undoubtedly been in the interests of the domestic consumer? Will he assure the House that, as that programme has begun to slip, he will take steps to ensure that the consumer interest is served, and British Gas returns to the programme that it originally promised?

Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern, which relates particularly to a factory in his constituency. As he knows, this is a matter for British Gas and Ofgas, and I understand that discussions are in progress.

Mr. Ian Bruce: How has regulation of the gas industry compared with the days of public ownership, in terms of the delivery of better service and lower prices? Can anything be learned from our other denationalised industries?

Mr. Eggar: Since privatisation, domestic gas prices have fallen by more than 23 per cent. and industrial prices by more than 30 per cent. in real terms.

Mr. Bennett: Is the Minister fully committed to ensuring that the Energy Saving Trust works effectively? If so, what steps will he take to ensure that the gas industry contributes financially to the trust, so that it can save energy, rather than allowing it to go on being wasted as it is now?

Mr. Eggar: I understand the importance that is attached to energy efficiency. The achievement of carbon savings by that means is one of our Rio commitments. Discussions are in progress with all interested parties.

Mr. Robin Cook: Is the Minister aware of the widespread disappointment that three of British Gas's five new business headquarters are located in the south-east, and that the furthest north is in Nottingham? Can he think of any reason, for business purposes, why British Gas should not put one of its headquarters in the region from which the gas comes, or where the majority of consumers are? Will he press British Gas—if it does not wish to become South-East Gas—to distribute its new area headquarters in the north, Scotland and Wales, to provide a regional identity that matches some of its loyal customers in those regions?

Mr. Eggar: Coming from the party that set up many of the nationalised industries, all of which had their headquarters in London, that is pure humbug.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Milburn: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his plans to assist manufacturing industry in the regions.

Mr. Heseltine: All United Kingdom manufacturers will benefit from the underlying strength of the economy and the best set of economic indicators for many years. Our


new initiatives for integrated regional offices and business links will help to ensure that manufacturers in the regions can take full advantage of this.

Mr. Milburn: Are not the 200,000 British manufacturing jobs that have been lost since the last general election a sign not of success but of Government failure? When will the Secretary of State take positive action to stem the haemorrhage of skills, talent and enterprise from regions such as the north, or is he content, as usual, merely to sit back and see the country's future being poured down the drain?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman does not understand that most of the jobs have been lost because of the drive for efficiency and improved productivity on which the future of those companies depends. There is no choice but to make our industries competitive. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen wish to see this country's economy cut to ribbons, all they have to do is say that we should overman it and have levels of productivity that are not world-competitive.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Will my right hon. Friend continue with his splendid set of policies, which have played an important part in the spectacular resurgence of British manufacturing in the past two years, and which have led to an increase of 1 per cent. in manufacturing output in the month of January alone?

Mr. Heseltine: In the spirit of your instructions, Madam Speaker, the answer is yes.

Dr. Bray: Does the President of the Board of Trade realise that, as the recovery gathers momentum, the new jobs will occur in the areas of high service employment, not in the manufacturing areas of Scotland, Wales and the north? Does he not realise, therefore, that special incentives are needed for manufacturing industry in those regions?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not believe in the overly simple generalisations in which the hon. Gentleman dressed his question. Large parts of our manufacturing industry are extremely competitive today and stand poised to seek the upturn in world trade which is evidently on its way.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I recognise the immensely improved economic climate that has been brought about as a result of the Government's policy for manufacturing industry—not least the base rate, interest rates and the establishment of business link, one of which is, I am pleased to say, in Macclesfield—will my right hon. Friend accept that the reintroduction of capital allowances would be of immediate benefit to manufacturing industry and would perhaps bring investment based on success, which this country needs?

Mr. Heseltine: I appreciate my hon. Friend's kind remarks about business link, and I am delighted that Macclesfield is one of the first centres to have such a facility. He will remember, however, that manufacturing output in the fourth quarter of 1993 was 2.2 per cent. higher than a year ago, and that continued opportunity exists without any change to the fiscal arrangements, which must be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade is aware that, for many purposes, the

Department of Trade and Industry and the Welsh Office have a dual role in attracting inward investment to Wales. I am also sure that he, as a good European, will accept that many regional authorities in Europe are playing an increasing role in attracting inward investment. Does he agree that the Welsh Office should have the lead role in attracting that investment to Wales?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the remarkable achievements that have taken place in Wales as a result of the activities of the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency in the past 10 years. I should have thought that he would support and build on them, without looking for structural change.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what most assists manufacturing industries in the regions is long-term low inflation, which we now have, low interest rates—we now have the lowest since 1972—and the fact that we have the lowest level of strikes since 1891? Does he agree that those three trends would be reversed if the Labour party ever got back into power?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has little to worry about, because it is evident from Labour Members' questions that there is not the slightest chance of that party ever getting back into power. The fact is that the economic circumstances are now as good as any that I can remember. We must all back British industry in its quest for increasing world markets, enjoying the fact that exports are at an all-time record level.

Mr. Beggs: Will the President of the Board of Trade examine closely the opportunity to keep our highly skilled engineers in the shipbuilding industry at work by making available for ship conversion the small element of assistance that is available in other European Union countries?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will understand that that is a complex issue. Broadly, the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to seek to eliminate those subsidies, not to increase the numbers available. However, we must always consider what specific effects they may have on British shipyards. Recently, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry was able to announce that we were able to give temporary help to Swan Hunter in the difficult circumstances it faced.

Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest threat to manufacturing industry in Britain would be the danger of the high social costs that would follow the implementation of the social chapter, and that it would make so much of our industry uncompetitive in world markets? What representations has my right hon. Friend received from industry on that subject?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the question of the social chapter. It so happens that, by coincidence, I have a press release from the CBI which addresses that point specifically in terms of the Labour party's policy on the social chapter. It says that it
ignores the rest of the world, ignores the whole purpose of the single market, and ignores the unemployed.
That, of course, is why people ignore the Labour party.

Industries (Leicester)

Mr. Janner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to assist the traditional industries of Leicester.

Mr. McLoughlin: I recently conducted the annual review of city challenge, which is available in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. A decision on future progress will be made shortly. The first business link in the country opened in Leicester on 27 September, with some £725,000 funding from the Department of Trade and Industry. Combined with the other measures that we are taking, we are doing a considerable amount in Leicester.

Mr. Janner: What would the Minister say to Mr. Charles Bradshaw, the managing director of a major clothing company in my constituency, who complains that the Government have allowed numerous manufacturing companies in Leicestershire to go to the wall, that Leicestershire's industry has suffered enormously and that they are looking to the Government for real help in reviving manufacturing industry? What help in reviving manufacturing industry and getting it off its knees are the Government intending to give?

Mr. McLoughlin: I can only say that if the person to whom the hon. and learned Member is referring is complaining, he is probably disappointed with the representation that he is getting in the House—a disappointment with the Opposition which is shared by Conservative Members.

Mr. Burns: Is my hon. Friend aware that Marconi Radar of Chelmsford has a manufacturing base in Leicester, and does he accept that the damage done to GEC Marconi in Leicester by the Opposition parties and by certain newspapers will only have been redeemed— hopefully—by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) on the "Today" programme the other day? Will he congratulate our hon. Friend on seeking to redress the imbalance caused by the Opposition parties?

Mr. McLoughlin: That does not need an answer from me. I am always happy to congratulate my hon. Friend.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Is the Minister aware that there are 30,000 jobs in Leicester and the surrounding county in the traditional industries of clothing and textiles and that, if the multi-fibre arrangement is phased out by 2005, many of those jobs will disappear? Would he estimate how many jobs will be left in 10 years' time?

Mr. McLoughlin: We all recognise the importance of the traditional industries in Leicester, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. May I point out to him that, in the Leicester travel-to-work area in January 1986, unemployment was 9.7 per cent. and that the latest figure is 8.8 per cent.—a reduction of more than 10 per cent? I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

Company Donations (Political Parties)

Ms Primarolo: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a list of donations given by companies employing members of his deregulation task forces to political parties.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): That information is not known to my Department or to me. The implication behind the question shows the essentially puerile approach of the hon. Lady and her party to the serious need to reduce business costs as a means of reducing unemployment.

Ms Primarolo: Did the Minister make an assessment of health and safety records, or of the breaching of any regulations by those companies before he appointed them? Did he ask consumer groups for their views of the companies, or was he concerned only to know how much the companies had donated to the Tory party?

Mr. Hamilton: I was concerned to know only how to improve the competitiveness of British industry by getting rid of redundant regulations and making more cost effective those that are necessary, and hence reducing unemployment. Unfortunately, the hon. Lady is more interested in playing party games.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend consider a list of donations by trade unions to members of the Opposition Front-Bench team, and will he consider whether it would make them worth employing for the deregulation task forces?

Mr. Hamilton: The difference between us and the Labour party is that it, as a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade union movement, is concerned to load extra costs on British business and to destroy jobs, whereas we are concerned to listen to the voice of experience in British business, to reduce those costs and to promote employment.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Is the Minister satisfied that he gets good value for the millions of pounds that his Department spends on company investigations, bearing in mind that, although there have been 82 published reports, only four directors, and no company auditors, have been disbarred? Is he concerned about the fact that, to investigate companies, his Department has often been known to hire accountants from companies that are themselves the subject of investigations, and that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—partners from companies that have been criticised by his Department often sit on the disciplinary panels—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have brought to the attention of the House several times lately the fact that Question Time is not a time for debate. We are dealing with direct questions. Will the Minister respond?

Mr. Hamilton: In deciding whether to pursue prosecutions against those who have breached company law, we follow the normal rules by which all parties in government have always operated. We take proper legal advice, and we believe in acting by due process of law.

Food Retailing (Regulation)

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on progress in removing regulatory burdens, other than opening hours, on food retailing businesses.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: A review has been completed of controls on a number of foodstuffs covered by European


Community hygiene directives. Departments are also looking at the problems caused to retailers by food temperature controls, and at the scope afforded by the EC general hygiene directive to simplify existing domestic regulations.

Mr. Nicholson: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to study the horrifying material in the book by Christopher Booker, a man of Somerset? Will he act on that material? If he opens the book at random, on page 145 he will see how a local government official went into a shop—not, alas, in my constituency—said, "I have the power to close businesses like this down," and then visited the shop, a bakery, three times during the following six months. Will he act to help shops in my constituency that, again at random, have come to my attention, such as those in North Curry and Kingston St. Mary?

Mr. Hamilton: As I appear in the book, I hope that my hon. Friend was not referring to me as part of the horrifying material. We should all be grateful to Mr. Christopher Booker for the publicity that he has given to some of the horrors of over-regulation and excessive zeal by some enforcement officers. I assure my hon. Friend that that is one of the items well to the fore in the deregulation initiative.

Ms Coffey: Is the Minister aware of the considerable concern in the north-west about the impact of out-of-town shopping centres on existing town centres? Will he talk to his colleagues in the Department of the Environment with a view to changing planning law to make impact on existing retail businesses a planning consideration when deciding on new applications? If he cannot do that, will he assure retail businesses in the north-west that they will not go totally out of business and lose thousands of jobs simply because of the present inadequacy of the planning laws?

Mr. Hamilton: As an act of kindness, I shall show my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the hon. Lady's question.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the Prime Minister on his achievement at the last Edinburgh summit, which means that 75 per cent. of all EC legislation must be tested for employment measures? Will he urge the Community to take that further so that it can create more employment?

Mr. Hamilton: I shall do precisely that in Brussels tomorrow. It is vital that Europe does not continue to export jobs to other parts of the world as a result of failing to cost the impact of the regulations that it has sometimes unthinkingly issued in the past. As for the future, we shall provide a systematic mechanism for costing the impact of regulations. I hope that it will produce better regulations.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of illnesses caused by food poisoning and that it is vital that food safety is not imperilled by deregulation? Will he give us an absolute guarantee that safety in this matter is paramount?

Mr. Hamilton: I agree that there is a sensible point of view to be taken on this question. In our deregulation initiative, the costs for business will not necessarily be the deciding factor in the decision whether to allow a

regulation to continue or to be introduced. It is always a question of balance. As the hon. Gentleman knows, losing one's balance can sometimes get one into trouble.

Exports

Mr. Spring: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the change in United Kingdom exports over the past year; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Needham: In the first 11 months of 1993, export volume was over 3 per cent. higher than in the same period a year earlier.
Exports to non-EC countries, particularly south-east Asia, have risen rapidly—11 per cent. higher in 1993 than in 1992—and UK exporters are well placed to expand volumes when European demand picks up.

Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend will be aware that much of our increased trade is with the booming economies of Asia. But is he aware that a trade mission from the Suffolk chamber of trade and commerce is currently in Malaysia and Singapore? Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating that mission on securing orders which will boost employment in the county of Suffolk?

Mr. Needham: I echo what my hon. Friend says. The chamber of commerce mission there has been very successful. Despite the efforts of Mr. Andrew Neil and others, it has achieved more orders than last year.

Mr. Purchase: The House will welcome the export efforts of our major companies, but, despite their heroic efforts in difficult circumstances, the United Kingdom's balance of payments problem remains acute. That can be put down to the policies of the Government.

Mr. Needham: The balance of payments percentage figures are lower now than at any time since 1982.

Mrs. Browning: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is extreme concern in my constituency among manufacturing industries? The chairman of one such company came to see me last week to say that his company has two £500,000 orders waiting to be signed in Malaysia. Will my hon. Friend use his best offices to ensure that the damage caused by the editor of The Sunday Times is put right as soon as possible?

Mr. Needham: I agree with my hon. Friend. If I may, Madam Speaker, I should like to thank the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, who has written to me to
express the concern of trade unions about the damaging consequences for jobs in British industry if the current restriction on the involvement of British companies in public work projects imposed by the Government of Malaysia is not lifted … We therefore support the government's efforts to restore good trading relations and we are confident that our trade union colleagues in Malaysia take a similar view.
I only wish that the editor of The Sunday Times, and the Murdoch press in general, would show as much responsibility as the general secretary of the TUC has shown.

Mr. Bell: We welcome the exchange that the Minister has had with the TUC. Does he accept that Her Majesty's Opposition have always given their full support to our export drive, and continue to give it full support today— and will continue to do so in the future? Anyone who seeks to maintain the contrary is guilty of base calumny.
As for the Government's current difficulties with Malaysia, it is our earnest wish to give the Government every support in achieving a successful outcome to the talks. It is desirable that the talks with Malaysia reach a fruitful conclusion before the signing of the general agreement on tariffs and trade on 15 April in Marrakesh. Although Malaysia may not be a signatory to that accord, it would be in its interests to reach an harmonious conclusion.

Mr. Needham: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's confirmation that the Opposition will do all that they can to help British exporters. I am not sure that that was always the case in the past.
As for the hon. Gentleman's comments on GATT, Sir Leon Brittan and the Commission will take a close interest in that matter. As the hon. Gentleman says, we must get this row out of the way as quickly as possible, and we are unlikely to do so if it is constantly exacerbated by the ludicrous comments of the editor of The Sunday Times.

Mrs. Gillan: I recognise that a beneficial change for exporters was the improvement in the Export Credits Guarantee Department regime announced in the Budget. Will my hon. Friend undertake to look at the bonding support to small and medium-sized businesses? As those businesses increasingly win overseas orders, they come up against their bonding limits and, in some cases, they are prevented from even tendering for overseas contracts because of the bonding support position.

Mr. Needham: I am perfectly happy to look at that matter on behalf of my hon. Friend. I should point out that, during the past two years, the premium rates have reduced by some 27 per cent. and the amount of cover made available to British industry has increased by some £2 billion. Today, I see that the ECGD has announced that it is supporting a major new order with GEC Alsthom in inner Mongolia.

Gas Appliance Installers

Mr. Loyden: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further estimate he has made of the number of gas appliance installers who are failing to register with the Council for Registered Gas Installers.

Mr. Eggar: I have made no such estimate.

Mr. Loyden: What action does the Minister intend to take to reduce the number deaths—one a week—caused by carbon monoxide poisoning? Is it a part of the Government's deregulation policy that they allow thousands of cowboy outfits to install gas appliances?

Mr. Eggar: All businesses must register and, of course, we have no intention of imperilling safety.

Industrial Growth

Mr. Fishburn: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what forecasts have been made for industrial growth for 1994 in the United Kingdom and in Germany.

Mr. Heseltine: Industrial production rose by nearly 3 per cent. in the UK last year, but fell by 7 per cent. in

Germany. Both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Commission are forecasting that the UK will be the fastest growing major EC economy in 1994 and 1995.

Mr. Fishburn: Would my right hon. Friend like to spell out some of the reasons behind the remarkable change in the industrial prospects of the two countries? Will he hazard a guess as to whether that change will be permanent?

Mr. Heseltine: The reasons are to be found in the fact that our exchange rate is competitive, our interest rates are low, our industrial relations are the best in 100 years, our inflation is low and our productivity has been rising significantly. That gives us a remarkable opportunity if we can contain the inflationary pressures, which the Government are determined to do.

Mr. Redmond: The President of the Board of Trade must be aware of the tremendous input of the people of South Yorkshire in those figures. Will he, therefore, ensure that the Rechar money to create that manufacturing base is made available to improve on those figures?

Mr. Heseltine: We shall do whatever we properly can to ensure that the Rechar money is distributed where it can do the most good. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that none of the excellent indicators to which I have referred could have been achieved without the dedication of the British work force. The fact that we now have the trade unions off the backs of working people means that we have achieved quite remarkable productivity gains.

Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the things that worry German industrialists is the way in which social and welfare costs in Germany are loaded on to employers' costs and the costs of employment? In this country, the same social and welfare programmes are funded by the taxpayer. Does that not represent the best possible deal for British wealth creators and the British social programme? Will my right hon. Friend use his role as the defender of the interests of the wealth-creating sector and of other Whitehall Departments to ensure that that deal is not broken, no matter what emanates from Brussels in the future?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important aspect of our competitiveness. Underlying the Government's strength is the opt-out provision, negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which gives us a real opportunity to pioneer in Europe and to change attitudes towards the costs which increasingly mirror the anxieties of the Europeans.

Mr. Hardy: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that we can maintain adequate industrial growth without a successful engineering steel industry? How can he justify the grossly inadequate response of Her Majesty's Government to the unfair practices in the EC steel-producing areas?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry secured clear assurances from the European Commission in December that there would be no revenue subsidies, that there would be close monitoring of any aid given to the industry and


that there would be a reduction in capacity. He will also welcome the fact that the privatised British Steel is now one of the most effective steel producers in the world.

Mr. Wells: How much does my right hon. Friend estimate that industrial production will be reduced by the damaging speeches of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, and of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on the Pergau dam?

Mr. Heseltine: I have no doubt that the speeches of the leader of the Liberal Democrats and of the leader of the Labour party would be capable of reducing jobs in Britain, provided that one condition was fulfilled, and it is extremely unlikely that that would ever happen—that anyone took a blind bit of notice of either of them.

Steel

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of steel production covered by the treaty of Paris is manufactured in the United Kingdom.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): In 1993, 12.9 per cent. of crude steel production covered by the treaty of Paris was manufactured in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that, notwithstanding the statement made about the courageous performance that he put up in Brussels in December, the other steel industries in Europe are far more subsidised than the industry in Britain and there remains a serious danger to British steel industry jobs? What can he say to steelworkers in my constituency working next door in Port Talbot about the safety of their jobs in those circumstances?

Mr. Sainsbury: I recognise that there is continuing concern about illegal subsidies paid to other European producers. I assure the House that we want the Commission to act as vigorously against those subsidies as it has against the alleged cartel.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the transformation in the British steel industry, which was losing £1 million a day in 1979 and is now the most efficient steel industry in western Europe?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating all at British Steel—management and work force—on what they have achieved in productivity gains. We now want them to be able to take advantage of their productivity improvements and their competitiveness against other European steel producers.

Mr. Fatchett: In December last year, the Minister promised before his negotiations in Brussels that he would save British Steel capacity and jobs from unfair subsidised competition. Why has he failed to deliver that promise? Why have all his negotiations proved to be such an abject failure? Will he give a guarantee that there will be no further cuts in capacity in British Steel and no further job losses? Or are all his words to come to nothing?

Mr. Sainsbury: British Steel does not appear to agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment. It is reported to have said:
Mr. Sainsbury has done well pushing our line over the last few months but it appears he has not found support around the table.
My natural modesty would normally not allow me to mention that, but perhaps, in the circumstances, I shall be forgiven.

Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that now that the steel industry has been made efficient in Britain as a result of privatisation, the best way in which the continental industries can reach the same level of efficiency is to be privatised and not subsidised?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend puts the point extremely effectively. Privatisation would lead to a much more efficient European steel industry.

Japanese Investment

Mr. Corbett: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next plans to visit Japan to discuss investment in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Heseltine: I have no plans to visit Japan in the near future, although I had a most useful visit in January, during which I had the opportunity to discuss inward investment with several key Japanese industrialists.

Mr. Corbett: As the Secretary of State and his Government have given up encouraging British investment in British industry and rely increasingly on the Japanese, on his next visit would he like to discuss with Japanese industrialists who are thinking about investing here the shabby way in which British Aerospace treated its partner Honda when it sold Rover behind Honda's back? What does he think that that will do to encourage the confidence of Japanese investors?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that discussions took place with Honda about these matters as they were taking place with BMW. The fact is that the board of British Aerospace decided that the best interests of British Aerospace and the company that it looked after were served by a deal with BMW. It would do the hon. Gentleman a great deal more good if he would now concentrate on building on the success of the deal that is available rather than on the problems of one that is not.

Mr. Oppenheim: Is there not some irony in this new-found love of Japanese investment among Opposition Members? Did they not complain bitterly when Honda first became involved in Rover? Is not the lesson of the days when Red Robbo and his mates were cranking out Allegros and Marinas—that is, when they were not asleep or on strike—that the less say that politicians, particularly Labour politicians, have in who runs the car industry, the better?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the disastrous investments that the Labour party made in the British motor industry, which were partly responsible for its collapse and, therefore, the fact that so much of it is now foreign owned. The United Kingdom has more than 41 per cent. of total Japanese investment in the European Community, and it must be in


the interests even of Opposition Members to understand that we should admire that, praise it and seek to build on it.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Does the President of the Board of Trade realise the amount of damage that will be done not only to our prospects for future investment from Japan but directly to Rover if there is a complete breach between Honda and Rover? Is he prepared to play an active part in ensuring that such a breach does not happen?

Mr. Heseltine: I have no grounds for believing that either side is approaching the difficult negotiations that it has to undertake with anything other than a realisation that they must be successfully concluded. The hon. Gentleman must understand that, the moment I appeared, the consequence would be simple—sboth sides would ask me for taxpayers' money to support their own ambitions.

Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a major reason why this country receives the lion's share of Japanese investment in Europe is that non-wage labour costs are much lower in the United Kingdom than on the continent? Will he do all in his power to ensure that the differential is maintained?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. That is why the opt-out clause that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister negotiated is so important. Japanese investors in this country know full well that they have a Government who are sympathetic to their interests and who will fight their corner as British companies when they invest here, so they have continued to come. The surest way of choking off Japanese investment would be to have a Labour Government, with their determination to impose on Japanese potential investors costs that they would not wish to pay.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister recall hearing the Minister for Industry assuring the House in the statement on Rover in January that his Department would do all it could to help the relationship between Honda and Rover to continue? In view of his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) that, the moment he appears, taxpayers' money will be required, will he explain what his colleague meant when he said that the Department would do all it could and tell us whether he and his Ministers are doing anything at all to keep the relationship open?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that we have had conversations with both parties on a continuing basis, but there is absolutely no guarantee that my Department's offering in some way to facilitate the dialogue would be in the best interests of either of the parties negotiating.

Industrial Growth

Mr. Streeter: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what forecasts have been made for industrial growth for 1994 in the United Kingdom and in other EC countries.

Mr. Heseltine: The United Kingdom and Ireland are estimated to be the only EC economies where industrial production rose last year. Both the Organisaton for Economic Co-operation and Development and the

European Commission are forecasting that the United Kingdom will be the fastest growing major EC economy in 1994 and 1995.

Mr. Streeter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these excellent forecasts demonstrate that many British companies are thriving in the economic framework that the Government have put in place, particularly low interest rates, low inflation, low corporation tax and the important supply side performance of the past 15 years? Is not this the best way to promote industrial growth—for the Government to put in place the right framework and let industry get on with it?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We believe that the present framework is one of the most exciting to have been available to British industry in recent decades. We give a wide range of additional support to our companies in many different sectors and will continue to ensure to the best of our ability that the services that we provide are of the highest standard.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect more sales of the airbus to the United States? When will the general agreement on tariffs and trade on outstanding aerospace matters begin? Will he pledge that the Government will fight the corner for that great industry?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will understand that we will do all that we can properly do to support that industry. The negotiations that were left outstanding at the initial conclusion of the GATT round are scheduled to be completed as early as practicable. We shall continue to watch carefully to see what happens. I do not wish to make a forecast about the precise sales, which must be a matter for the companies involved.

Regional Offices

Mr. Rathbone: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many regional offices have been established, and where; and what further locations are planned.

Mr. Sainsbury: There will be 10 integrated regional offices and a number of sub-offices. I shall arrange for the locations to be published in the Official Report.

Mr. Rathbone: The House will welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Can he also reassure the House on the methods of co-ordination and co-operation to be established between the offices, local training and enterprise councils, local chambers of commerce and industry and local authorities—all of which will be particularly important in the development plans of the Sussex prime port of Newhaven?

Mr. Sainsbury: I know the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to the port of Newhaven. The creation of the integrated regional offices will facilitate the sort of co-operation between Departments, training and enterprise councils, chambers of commerce and industry and local authorities to which he refers.
Following is the information:
There will be new integrated regional offices in 10 regions: London; South East, based in London and other locations in the region; South West, based in Bristol; Eastern, based in Cambridge and Bedford; East Midlands, based in Nottingham; West Midlands, based in Birmingham; Yorkshire and


Humberside, based in Leeds; North East, based in Newcastle; North West, based in Manchester; and Merseyside, based in Liverpool.

Japanese Investment

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Japanese companies opened their first European manufacturing plant in the United Kingdom in each of the calendar years from 1987 to 1993.

Mr. Heseltine: From information available to my Department it is not possible to determine whether any particular investment during the period in question is the first by a Japanese company in Europe. However, the number of Japanese manufacturers making their first investments in the United Kingdom in each of the years from 1987 to 1993 is as follows: 1987, 23; 1988, 15; 1989, 29; 1990, 34; 1991, 23; 1992, 17; and 1993, nine.

Mr. Gunnell: I am sure that the Secretary of State will wish to congratulate Yorkshire and Humberside development association on the successful conference on Anglo-Japanese partnership last week. Will he acknowledge that many of the investments that the Japanese brought to this country required the co-operation at local level of Labour-controlled local authorities? Does he agree that Labour-controlled authorities have an excellent record in co-operating with development organisations to produce those settlements? Does he also agree that the shortfall in numbers shown by the two figures of 17 and nine that he gave for the past two years is the result of a complex number of factors? It certainly provides no evidence that the rejection of the social chapter by the Conservative party helped to secure Japanese inward investment.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that the figures show beyond any doubt what we all know—that the Japanese industrial economy has been going through one of the most difficult periods since the war. I would be the first to recognise that local authorities, whether Labour or Conservative, largely behave in a responsible way in trying to help the Government and all those involved in inward investment to secure satisfactory arrangements. I wish that the Labour party in the House of Commons would act with the responsibility of local authorities.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why Japanese companies have invested in this country is our system of low regulation levels compared with those of many of our counterparts in the EC? Will he join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on his stalwart action in stopping any changes to the blocking minority in the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Heseltine: I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary the support of my hon. Friend, as well as others of my hon. Friends, for the negotiations that he is conducting.

Mr. Burden: Does the President accept that the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) will be greeted with astonishment and disgust by my constituents in Longbridge? Does he not recognise that unless the rift between Rover and Honda is repaired, the casualties will be many jobs in my constituency and elsewhere? Will he

accept his responsibility to intervene and ensure that the rift is repaired and that the new partnership can be as successful as the old one?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman assumes that there is a role for the Government in what are essentially commercial arrangements. There is not a shred of evidence to show that either party wants the Government to intervene in this circumstance. If I thought that there was a danger of breakdown, that might change the circumstance, but there is no evidence of such a danger. Over the past three days, I have had personal dialogue with one of the principal players. Those people would have made very clear their views if it were necessary for me to take any positive steps at this stage. No purpose whatsoever is served when the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends raises scares of this sort, which are not reflected in the dialogue going on at boardroom level.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that south Wales has become the silicon valley of Europe, producing Japanese colour television sets and computers, and that the Staffordshire-Derbyshire corridor has become the Detroit of Europe, with its Toyota plant? Does he agree that if it were up to the Labour party's interventionist policies and support for the social chapter, there would be no Japanese investment in Britain at all?

Mr. Heseltine: I cannot but admire the neo-imperialism of my hon. Friend. We have achieved a triumph of inward investment in all parts of the country. The essence of the case is to keep Britain competitive so that the investment continues to come.

Companies (Political Donations)

Mr. Enright: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further assessment he has made of the operation of the Companies Act 1985 in relation to the use of associated companies to make political donations.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: The responsibility for reporting political donations rests with the companies making them. Under section 234 and schedule 7 to the Companies Act 1985, parent companies are obliged to disclose in the directors' report political donations exceeding £200 in aggregate made by it and all its subsidiaries, including foreign ones. I have no plans for any further review.

Mr. Enright: Does that not show staggering complacency? Is the Minister aware that, arising from the contracts for the Pergau dam, which were let to firms contributing to Tory party funds, there is considerable suspicion here that the bribery was not in Malaysia but on the part of the United Kingdom Government?

Mr. Hamilton: Only those who are easily staggered will be staggered by my response, but we are not surprised at the hon. Gentleman's.

Mr. Hendry: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the staggering wisdom of his last reply. Will he confirm that during the 1980s British industry, under Conservative policies, grew faster than industry in any other country? Under Conservative policies, British industry is now coming out of recession faster than industry in any other country. Does that not show that investment in the Conservative party is a sound commercial decision and the


best investment that companies can ever make and that investment in any other party is the shortest route to bankruptcy yet devised by man?

Mr. Hamilton: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is staggering that the Labour party has still not learnt the lesson that improved competitiveness is the way to increase employment. As Labour Members are incapable of learning that lesson, they will never be in a position to form the Government of this country.

Mr. George Howarth: Is the Minister aware that, in response to parliamentary questions about 41 quangos that I tabled last year, we were told that 127 members of those bodies were connected with companies that donate to the Tory party? Is it not clear that what is going on is an auction for places on quangos— appointments in return for donations to the Conservative party?

Mr. Hamilton: That matter was comprehensively debated in the House recently, and the Labour party was comprehensively trounced.

Rover

Mr. David Evans: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average profit or loss per vehicle when the Rover car company was a nationalised industry.

Mr. Sainsbury: The British Leyland group did not produce figures for profitability per vehicle for its constituent businesses. From 1975 until privatisation, the

taxpayer invested about £3.5 billion in British Leyland. At the end of that period, Rover had trading tax losses of £1.6 billion.

Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the British car industry was bankrupt under the weight of unions, nationalisation and socialism? Does he also agree with me that during the past 15 years of Conservative Government this country has never had it so good? [Interruption.] Even the lot opposite have given up Lambeth and cloth caps for Chelsea and baseball caps.

Mr. Sainsbury: If we had not reversed the policies of the Labour party, instead of British car production being at the best level since 1972, it might have disappeared altogether.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On Rover, has the Minister seen the television programmes in which executives of Honda were interviewed, and said repeatedly that they were treated shabbily, and in one case treated dishonourably, by the British? Do Ministers have a view on that? Will they stand up and say what they believe has happened in that specific case?

Mr. Sainsbury: I fear that I may have rather less time to watch television than the hon. Gentleman and I did not see the television programme to which he referred. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade confirmed this afternoon, the Government welcome inward investment from Japan and, indeed, from all other countries.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the claim by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—[Interruption.]—that there are a number of "exceptional circumstances" in which it is necessary "to mislead Parliament", and in view of his further claim, in the context of Ministers providing full and accurate information, that
Much of Government activity is much more like playing poker than playing chess. You don't put all your cards up at one time",
will you tell us whether you have received a request from the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement to clarify that highly damaging doctrine? If not, will you say whether it is consistent with paragraph 27 of the guidance for Ministers, which says that Ministers are to provide
as full information as possible about the policies, decisions and actions … and not to deceive or mislead Parliament and the public"?
If it is not consistent—[Interruption.]—will you say whether the Minister for open government can remain in the Government when he is seeking to justify such deceptions and half truths?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am perfectly capable of dealing with this point of order.
Guidance to Ministers is a matter for Ministers themselves. I ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to what I said last evening, when I ruled on this question in response to a point of order from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). In case it is of assistance to the House, and I hope it is, I want to quote from page 181 of "Erskine May" on this matter:
The opinion of the Speaker cannot be sought in the House about any matter arising or likely to arise in a committee.
If a Committee has any matter about which it feels that the House should be aware, it can make a report to the House, at which point any appropriate action can be considered.
In answer to another question that the hon. Gentleman put to me directly, no, I have not been informed that any Minister is seeking to make a statement today.

Mr. Gary Streeter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could advise me whether or not it is a matter of record that only two Members have been shown to have lied to the House of Commons, both of them Labour Ministers, Sir Stafford Cripps—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that matter. The hon. Gentleman should not now abuse the situation.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Does it relate to the same matter? I have given a ruling. Does the hon. Gentleman have something different to raise?

Mr. Winnick: Yes.

Madam Speaker: In that case, I will hear it.

Mr. Winnick: I do not want to refer to the Committee, Madam Speaker, because, as you said, you were kind enough to deal with that matter last night. May I ask you —and my question has nothing to do with the Committee

and is not necessarily confined to Ministers—whether you would deprecate any form of lying to the House at any time, whether by Ministers or by anyone else?

Madam Speaker: I repeat what "Erskine May" so wisely tells me—that the opinion of the Speaker cannot be sought on such matters in the House.

Mr. Michael Bates: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it a different one?

Mr. Bates: It is indeed. May I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker? Is it not a custom, outlined in "Erskine May", that when hon. Members make statements in the House about another hon. Member, they should give that hon. Member notice of their intention so that he can be in his place to respond?

Madam Speaker: It is customary to do so, and it is a convention of the House.

Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the important statement made by the Minister for open government yesterday, have either you or—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that matter.

Mr. Home Robertson: Have either you or Members of the House any way of knowing when Ministers are telling the truth?

Madam Speaker: I accept the word of all hon. Members in the House.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): On a totally different point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday The Daily Telegraph carried an article that said that, for the first time, a Minister had risen to discuss the question of the Malaysian dispute. The reason for that is that, although my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade had made a speech in the House the previous Tuesday, those in the Press Gallery go home so early that nobody picked it up. It was therefore not until my hon. Friend repeated those remarks on the radio that any notice at all was taken.
My point of order is this. Is there any possibility of your setting up a Speaker's commission to discuss the way in which the House is reported now that the press no longer stay to report ministerial speeches made after about 5 pm?

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the whole House will give me support when I say that I certainly do not give marks for accuracy in press reporting.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A problem could arise out of your statement on the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). At present, when a Minister is accused of lying to the House, the hon. Member responsible can be thrown out, either for a day or for five days. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that in future, if any of us accuses Ministers of lying, you will be placed in a predicament because you will not be able to throw people out.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has totally misunderstood my ruling, which concerns Committee proceedings. I am quite prepared to deal with the situation myself when it arises on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be for the convenience of the House if the press could obtain a full Hansard report of what is said in Select Committees? Someone telephoned me this morning asking for my comments on what he thought had been said in a Select Committee, having heard reports of what was said that were completely contrary to what my video recorder showed had been said. That person had no way of checking an official report, because Select Committee reports appear some weeks after the words have been said. We could all be running around in circles talking about something that has not been correctly reported.

Madam Speaker: Committees do their utmost to be helpful and in every case issue transcripts of proceedings as soon as they have been corrected.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Rein): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point relates to the conduct of debate arising from yesterday's statement by the Minister responsible for Government information. The Home Secretary was interviewed this morning on BBC television and was given the opportunity to repudiate clearly his right hon. Friend's statement that it was acceptable in certain circumstances to mislead the House. We are shortly to hear a speech from the Home Secretary on the important question of the prevention of terrorism legislation. How are we to know whether he intends to tell us the truth during that speech?

Madam Speaker: That was a pretty convoluted point of order on a matter that has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that it is entirely within the rights of any hon. Member to make a personal statement to the House irrespective of whether the occurrence to which it relates takes place outside this House or in a Committee? If the Minister wanted to clarify the position about lying to the House of Commons, he could come here and make a personal statement instead of trying to wriggle out of the difficulty through the press.

Madam Speaker: Of course that is correct; but I would have to read the statement and approve it in the first instance.

Decorations for Gallantry (Display)

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the public display or exhibition of decorations for gallantry; and for connected purposes.
The Bill would give the Secretary of State for Defence the ultimate decision-making power over where the highest awards for gallantry are displayed to the public in cases of dispute. I bring this matter before the House because I have been contacted by one of my elderly constituents, Mr. William Whitham, who is now in his late 80s and is the son of the late Private Thomas Whitham VC, who was awarded the Victoria Cross for conspicuous gallantry in the trenches in the first world war.
For nearly 40 years, my constituent has been trying to arrange for his late father's Victoria Cross medal to be displayed at the Coldstream Guards museum—the regiment to which his late father belonged—instead of at a museum in Burnley, the medal's current location. The Coldstream Guards museum already has on display all the other 12 Victoria Crosses won by members of that most gallant regiment, and my constituent and the surviving members of his family would dearly like his late father's medal to be displayed there as well.
The regiment has supported Mr. Whitham in his campaign, as have many people over the years, including my parliamentary predecessor Sir Peter Blaker, who also raised the matter in the House.
Mr. Whitham feels particularly strongly that it is not appropriate for the medal to be on display in Burnley because of the history of how it came to be in the hands of Burnley council, and how his late father was treated by that council. Immediately after my constituent's father had won the Victoria Cross, Private Whitham's home town of Burnley said that it was very proud of him; his portrait was painted; presentations were made; and various civic ceremonies were held during the last year of the war.
When the war ended, however, and Private Whitham returned to Burnley and to his young family, sadly he had no job to return to. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will recall that this was supposed to be the
land fit for heroes to live in",
when the troops returned.
Former Private Whitham VC wrote to Burnley corporation, asking if he might be able to work for it in the humble capacity of a manual worker. The letter of rejection that he received—a copy of which I have read—only a year or so after being fêted as a local hero was, to say the least, curt and humiliatingly dismissive.
As we are all aware, jobs were hard to come by in the early 1920s and Private Whitham VC and his young family lived in harsh and reduced circumstances. My constituent, who, as I said, is well over 80, has never forgotten the sense that they all had that the town of Burnley had rejected his father.
Tommy Whitham VC was forced to leave his young family to seek work elsewhere. His Victoria Cross medal was pawned on two occasions to raise money for the family, and eventually, only six years after the war ended, Private Tommy Whitham VC died in penury.
Once my constituent reached adulthood, he sought to have the medal returned and, on one occasion, in 1948, he nearly succeeded. Burnley council passed a resolution saying that the medal could be returned to my constituent


if £50 were paid. Unfortunately, my constituent was travelling the country while employed as a civil servant by the Ministry of Works and he never received a message about the council decision. Within a week or two of the decision, there was a change of political control, I understand, in Burnley council and the Labour party was elected. The previous decision was immediately reversed at the next council meeting before my constituent was informed of the first decision.
Over many years since, all attempts to persuade Burnley council to release the medal have failed, even though for many years it appears that the medal and its ribbon were not at all well looked after. It is right to point out that only after my predecessor, Sir Peter Blaker, and the colonel-in-chief of the Coldstream Guards raised the matter in 1991 was the decision finally taken to put the medal on display. It is fair to say that Burnley council has offered in recent weeks, after I had taken up the case, to present a replica of the medal to my constituent, but he feels that that, too, is not what he seeks. He is strongly of the view that his late father's regiment should have the medal on display.
I feel strongly about this matter because, although my own service connections are with the Royal Navy, my late grandfather, who died only three years ago, served in the trenches in the first world war in what was then the Royal Horse Artillery and was commissioned from the ranks. Therefore, I know—second hand from him—what all soldiers who served in the trenches in the first world war went through, and the extraordinary bravery that must have been shown by my constituent's late father to win the Victoria Cross.
I believe that it is entirely appropriate for the Secretary of State for Defence to be given the power to decide in cases of dispute such as this where our most important decorations for gallantry should be displayed. There is a strong body of opinion on this matter and I have had tremendous support from my hon. Friends, many of whom have served in the distinguished Coldstream Guards regiment.
I very much hope that, when Burnley council is made aware of this debate, it will consider thinking again about the matter. I see that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is in the Chamber. I must say, in fairness to him, that I know that in his time as a member of Burnley council, and since becoming a Member of the House, he has also sought to take up this matter, but unfortunately it appears that we have not yet succeeded in persuading Burnley council to reverse its earlier decision.
This is an important matter. It relates most directly to one of my constituents, but it has great significance for a large number of people who remember the gallantry of all those who served in the trenches in world war one.
The most appropriate words with which I could close my remarks would be those that were used with a heavy sense of irony by the first world war poet, Wilfred Owen, whose poetry I studied when at school:
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I wish to speak in opposition to the Bill of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) quite simply because I believe that it would be wrong to allow the ten-minute Bill procedure to be allowed to give any impression that anything that is debated under it today had the approval of the House. I

believe that the issue must be looked at. The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that I have raised the matter on number of occasions, both as a Member of Parliament and as a member of the local authority.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, my military service was just two years in the Royal Marines. It would be totally wrong to approve a Bill that, in a dispute about where the medal should go, allows the final decision to be made by the Secretary of State for Defence, whatever Government and political party is in control at the time. It would in my view make it a political decision if the Government were to determine to whom medals belonged and to where they should go—[Interruption.] As always, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) is making sedentary comments.
It is contended that the medal should be displayed with the other 11 Victoria Crosses awarded to the Coldstream Guards. But there is a view strongly held in Burnley that Thomas Whitham, who with great heroism earned the VC in 1917 during the first world war, was a hero of Burnley. It is with great pride that his medal is shown in the Towneley art gallery and museum, which is owned by the local authority.
As a schoolboy, I went to the art gallery and museum and saw the display in which the medal has been on show from time to time; it is now on show more frequently. Notwithstanding the claims of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South, we children took great pride in the fact that the Victoria Cross had been won, with great courage, by someone who lived in Burnley. I accept that Burnley council treated Thomas Whitham appallingly in the 1920s, but I should point out that it was not Labour-controlled at the time: Labour did not take control until many years later.
Thomas Whitham was presented with the medal in 1917. He was also given a gold watch and chain, and his portrait was painted; it now hangs in Towneley hall. In 1921, owing to hardship, he pawned his VC, and the council purchased it in 1931. It is believed that the medal had been pawned on earlier occasions, that it was not held in pawn for the entire 10 years and that the council had previously redeemed it and returned it to Mr. Whitham. Ultimately, however, he had to pawn it in order to survive. That is a sad reflection of the way in which we have treated many people who fought in the first world war, in a land which—I agree—was not quite as fit for heroes as we would have wished.
The issue raised by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South was raised in 1948, but 10 years elapsed between the decision made then and Mr. Whitham's contacting the council again. It may have been felt that, if the issue had been so important to him, he would have pursued it earlier. It was considered again in 1980, 1988 and 1990, and I raised it recently with the chief executive of the council and the controlling group. It is clearly felt that the medal belongs in Burnley's art gallery and museum. The Coldstream Guards have been offered a replica, as has Mr. Whitham junior; the council is willing to pay for both.
The regiment understands and accepts the council's decision. That is clear from a letter from the regimental headquarters to the then chief executive of the council, dated 12 July 1991. The letter states that the regiment accepts that the medal can be made available to it on loan. Indeed, it has been made so available on a number of occasions, whenever the regiment has requested it. It has


also been shown throughout Lancashire in various travelling exhibitions, and presented as something for which a part of Lancashire should be proud.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South is right to pursue, with diligence and concern, an issue that affects one of his constituents. I feel, however, that this is the wrong way to deal with it. I wish to make it clear that whatever happens now does not necessarily mean that the House approves of the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nick Hawkins, Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes, Sir Archibald Hamilton, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Cyril D. Townsend, Mr. Matthew Banks, Mr. Michael Stephen, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Michael Mates, Mr. Michael Colvin and Sir Edward Heath.

DECORATIONS FOR GALLANTRY (DISPLAY)

Mr. Nick Hawkins accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the public display or exhibition of decorations for gallantry; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 June, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.
It is 20 years ago this year that the first prevention of terrorism legislation was laid before the House. The Home Secretary of the day was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Since then, it has been the hope of successive Home Secretaries that the day would come when the circumstances which made these exceptional powers necessary would cease to exist but, for most of the past 20 years, that has been very much a hope rather than an expectation.
This year's debate is held against a background of particular controversy. I deplore the fact that the meetings which took place last week between the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister, the hon Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and me became public knowledge. That should not have happened. However, I equally deplore the observations which have been made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield, who implied more than once that the Government are insisting on the retention of all the powers currently in the Act for party political reasons. That is nonsense. The powers are necessary in the fight against terrorism. The police think so; I think so; and for every year it was in government from 1974, the Labour party thought so, too. The hon. Gentleman should stop pretending that anyone who disagrees with him does so only for party political reasons.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: The Home Secretary will be aware that No. 10 has today let it be known that it is unable to locate the source of the leak to the Sunday Express but has said that the Home Office has no responsibility for it. For many of us, that is scarcely believable in view of the fact that not only did the original story cite a ministerial source offering a comment on the Home Secretary's views of the meeting but the Home Secretary himself is quoted in the article, thus by implication confirming the existence of the meeting. Will he give the House an unambiguous assurance that neither he nor his officials and neither of his two special advisers —Mr. David Cameron and Mr. Patrick Rock, who are regularly seen operating in the Press Gallery—had any responsibility for planting the story in the Sunday Express?

Mr. Howard: Yes, I certainly give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman and to the House. I hope that we can now cease to divert attention from the substantive issues that are of such great importance to our debate and instead concentrate on them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Howard: I propose to continue with the central issues.
It is the Labour party that has to explain the change in its position. Why, if the Act was acceptable between 1974 and 1980, is it no longer acceptable today? While it is trying to answer that question, it must recognise the fact that, since those years, we have modified one of the powers to which it objects. The exclusion order which, in its original form in 1974, was unlimited in time was limited to


three years in 1984. We have also instituted annual reviews of the workings of the Act by someone wholly independent of Government who has full access to all the papers.
I would certainly welcome a common approach to these matters from all parties, but I do not have to remind the House that it was the Labour party which moved away from that bipartisan consensus on how to tackle the terrorism that threatens our society. Therefore the Labour party needs to change its position if that consensus is to be re-established. It simply will not do for the Labour party to say that it is in favour of anti-terrorist legislation in principle and then to criticise its two key provisions, which make such a crucial contribution to the fight against terrorism.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Howard: I shall give way in a moment.
The way in which to achieve a common approach is not for the Government to give up those key powers, but for the Opposition to recognise once again, as they did consistently between 1974 and 1980, that those powers are essential and ought to be supported. It is especially disappointing that they seem unable to do that. I hope that they prove me wrong by the end of the afternoon, in the light of the support that they have given, which I warmly welcome, to the joint declaration that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland signed on 15 December. That declaration was a courageous and imaginative attempt by the two Governments to demonstrate to the men of violence that there can be no possible justification for continuing their campaign of terror.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the Home Secretary accept—I hope that he does—that the loathing of terrorism is universal in the House, bearing in mind the crimes and atrocities committed in Northern Ireland and remembering Warrington and the two small boys, among others, who were put to death as a result of the activities of the IRA? Does not the Home Secretary also recognise that there are genuine criticisms of the PTA, such as those in the piece written by Simon Jenkins in The Times today? The points that he makes should be appreciated by the Home Secretary.
It is precisely the terrorists—the enemies of democracy and of Britain—who, to a large extent, want our civil liberties to be undermined because they recognise that, in so doing, that discredits the democratic system. Why does not the Home Secretary use every opportunity to establish a common approach, which can be put forward by the Government and the Opposition?

Mr. Howard: It is one thing to loathe terrorism; it is another thing to translate that loathing into practical action. Those of us on the Conservative Benches are prepared to take the action which those who have the day-to-day responsibility on the streets of the country think is essential if terrorism is to be fought. The Labour party also thought that when it was in government. Of course, I accept that there are weighty matters to be considered. They were considered in every one of those years when the leader of the Opposition went into the Lobby in favour of those powers. When the Conservative party was in opposition, it was prepared to support the Government, who were putting those powers on the statute book. It is a great shame that the Opposition do not take a similar point of view.

Mr. Tony Blair: The Home Secretary will know of the two objections that we have made. The first is in respect of exclusion orders. In 1987, Lord Colville, the former Home Office Minister and adviser at that time, recommended in his full review of the PTA that that policy be discontinued. Secondly, the judicial intervention in relation to detention is in accordance with the European Court ruling and with many other matters. We are asking the Home Secretary to respond by having a full and independent review by a senior—[Interruption.]—by a senior and respected figure, which could be agreed on both sides of the House, to try to reach agreement on that matter. Why can he not respond to what is a manifestly reasonable request?

Mr. Howard: The legislation before us is just about the most reviewed legislation on the statute book. It is reviewed independently every year. We know the points at issue between the Opposition and the Government, which have just been identified by the hon. Gentleman. They are not shrouded in mystery. They are in the open. However, not once since it changed its position on those matters in 1981 has the Labour party come forward with a specific series of proposals as to how the objectives of fighting terrorism can be achieved in a different way from the way in which we propose, which it originally supported.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will deal with the following point when he next gets to his feet. It is worth remembering just why the Labour party changed its position on this vital issue.
In 1980 when the shadow Home Secretary, the then Merlyn Rees, voted in favour of renewal of the Act, he was followed into the Aye Lobby by barely a handful of members of his own party. On that occasion more of them voted against him than in his favour. The vast majority of the Labour party abstained, and refused to accept his lead. Since then, in order to placate its left wing, it is the Labour party that has consistently played party politics on the issue.
No loyalist needs to take up arms to safeguard Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom, because both Governments solemnly accept that a united Ireland can come about only with the agreement and freely given consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. No republican has any justification for the bomb or the bullet, because the British Government agree that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, north and south, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish.
Members on both sides of the House will, I know, share my profound disappointment that the hopes created by the joint declaration remain unfulfilled. Apologists for the IRA see fit to suggest that it has generously decided to make some reduction in the level of violence for the moment while it makes up its mind about the declaration.
That offers no comfort to the victims of terrorist outrages: the families of Guardsman Blinco of the 1st Battalion the Grenadier Guards, killed by a sniper at Crossmaglen on 30 December, and of Constable Beacom, the community constable who died after a rocket attack in Belfast on 17 February; the people of Londonderry, where a 450lb bomb aimed at an army patrol exploded four days after the declaration; the postal workers in London who had letter bombs explode in their sorting offices before


Christmas; the shopkeepers in London's west end who have had their premises damaged by incendiaries in the past three weeks. They do not want to hear weasel words from Gerry Adams or from anyone else. They want—we all want—a permanent end to the violence.
Between 15 December and yesterday there have been some 130 terrorist incidents in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including a number of attacks on Catholics by so-called loyalists. Seven lives have been lost and many more might have been lost but for the merest chance. Fifty-one people have been injured, some seriously, and considerable damage has been caused to property. Terrorists of every colour have never been more isolated and publicly reviled.
Those bare statistics and the human suffering that they represent show how essential it is that we do not for one moment drop our guard. While the present threat remains, the prevention of terrorism Act will continue to be an indispensable means of protecting the public against lawless and murderous criminals, and do so under the rule of law.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Howard: No, not at the moment.
I can hardly improve on the way in which the matter was put on Second Reading of the original Bill 20 years ago:
I believe that we have a prime duty to defend the liberties of our constituents, but a Bill of Rights and a whole volume of liberties are of little value to someone who is 6 ft beneath the ground or someone whose body has been dismembered by a bomb."—[Official Report,28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 699.] Those words were not spoken by a Conservative Member in that debate. They were not even spoken by the Home Secretary. They were spoken by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). What the country wants to know is why he and his colleagues have abandoned the sensible view that they took of such matters 20 years ago.
We have brought the order before the House because we remain convinced that the job of the police and of the Security Service would be substantially more difficult, and the lives and property of people in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain at much greater risk, if the specific powers and offences created by the Act were not available. Indeed, our view is that in some respects they need strengthening. That is why new stop-and-search powers and new offence provisions appear in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which is now being considered in Committee.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that he has the backing of 95 per cent. or more of the population of this country for this measure, and that he has the backing of the vast majority of people in both communities in Northern Ireland too?

Mr. Howard: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The people of this country appreciate the need for these measures.
The past 12 months have seen moments of particularly tragic despair. The tragedy at Warrington, with its unspeakable taking of two very young lives, touched the hearts of many people not only in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland but around the world. The

explosion in Bishopsgate, which killed one person and injured 44 others, was the second major incident in a year to bring suffering and disruption to the City of London. The murderous attack on the Protestant community of the Shankill road and the appalling reprisal by so-called loyalists in the Greysteel massacre added grimly to the death toll.
Last year there were 730 terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland in which 84 people were killed and 826 injured, while in Great Britain there were 49 incidents, in which three people died and 124 were injured. The terrorists continued to hold the community to ransom by destroying jobs, livelihoods and homes.

Mr. Foulkes: I agree with every word that the Home Secretary has said. As he goes through the catalogue of deaths for this year, last year and the year before, does it never occur to him that in all that time this Act has been on the statute book and that it may not be working? Perhaps it is time to review it.

Mr. Howard: I should like to know what makes the hon. Gentleman think that his judgment about the effectiveness of these measures is to be preferred to that of the police. It is the police who have to deal with the terrorists day by day on our streets—[Interruption.]—not the hon. Gentleman, and not those on the Opposition Back Benches who are joining him in this cacophony. I prefer the judgment of the police to the judgment of the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Anthony Grant: Should we not also add the fact that without these powers, over the years, the slaughter and the injuries would have been infinitely worse?

Mr. Howard: I certainly agree. We must not overlook the high degree of success achieved by the police, the Army and other agencies. In Northern Ireland, 368 people were arrested and charged with serious terrorist offences. One hundred and ninety-six firearms and 60 rocket or mortar launchers were recovered, more than 6,500 kg of explosives were neutralised, and nearly 4,000 kg of unprimed explosives were found.
In Great Britain, 22 people were charged with serious terrorist offences following detention under the prevention of terrorism Act in 1993. Thirteen people have been convicted of such offences in the past year and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment—10 of them to 20 years or more. Counter-terrorist operations on the mainland also led to the recovery of a large quantity of terrorist equipment. More has been discovered in the past month. In Northern Ireland, a majority of the 368 people charged in 1993 with scheduled—terrorist-related—offences were detained under the Act's powers.
For these successes against the terrorist menace we have to thank the police, the Security Service and, in Northern Ireland, the armed forces for their unstinting efforts on behalf of the public. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for their work and achievements. We are fortunate to have been able to rely on their courage and professionalism. I also acknowledge with gratitude the valuable and important contribution of the police in the Irish Republic.
The powers available under the Act have continued to play a crucial part in these successes. Without them, the prevention of attacks and the investigation of crimes would have been far more difficult. I am indebted to Mr. John


Rowe QC, last year's chairman of the Bar Council, who has produced a report on the operation of the Act in 1993. The House will, I am sure, share my gratitude to him for the careful and thorough work contained in this, his first report.
Mr. Rowe's conclusion is that
the Act should indeed be continued in force".
He is satisfied from having had full access to all the records, including the intelligence material on which so many decisions must be based, that the powers have been exercised with great care and attention.
The two provisions which stand at the heart of the Act are, of course, those relating to arrest and detention and those conferring the power to make exclusion orders. I shall deal with them in turn.
As Mr. Rowe's report reveals, the total number of detentions under the Act in the United Kingdom in 1993 was 8 per cent. clown on the figure for 1992. Of these, 28 per cent. resulted in extensions beyond 48 hours on my authority or that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Of the 494 extensions in 1993, 455 extensions were granted in Northern Ireland and 39 in Great Britain.
Mr. Rowe notes that the police in Northern Ireland and Great Britain make a deliberate effort to relate the length of extension applied for in any case to the work outstanding in the investigation. My right hon. Friends and I thoroughly endorse that approach, ensuring as it does that each detention is kept to the minimum required.
The value of the period of extended detention is made clear by the statistics. In Great Britain, of the 39 people whose period of detention was extended beyond the initial 48 hours in 1993, 17 were charged with serious terrorist offences, including attempted murder and conspiracy to cause explosions. A further two were served with exclusion orders. In Northern Ireland, 25 per cent. of cases in which detention was extended resulted in charges.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: How many requests for extension of detention in the past two years in both Britain and the north of Ireland have been refused, either by the Home Secretary in Britain or by the Secretary of State in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Howard: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer to that question now, but I hope to be able to give the answer at the end of the debate.
The most contentious issue is who should consider extension applications. As the House is aware, the power of the Secretary of State to extend the detention of terrorist suspects up to a total of seven days has required the United Kingdom to derogate from article 5(3) of the European convention on human rights, following a ruling in the Brogan case that detention beyond four days without judicial authority was contrary to the convention.
Let me make clear that the Government would very much prefer it if that derogation were no longer necessary. But it is, and since the House last considered this matter, the European Court of Human Rights has, in the case of Brannigan and McBride, upheld the derogation. In its ruling it held:
having regard to the nature of the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland, the limited scope of the derogation and the reasons advanced in support of it, as well as the existence of basic safeguards against abuse, the Court takes the view that the Government have not exceeded their margin of appreciation in considering that … the derogation was strictly required by the

exigencies of the situation".
After the Brogan case, the Government looked closely to see whether there was a judicial solution. But, for the reasons given to the House fully on 14 November 1989, we had to conclude that the dangers outweighed the advantages. Those who had previously carried out major reviews of the legislation—Lords Shackleton, Jellicoe and Colville—had all come to the same conclusions.
Let me quote from the report by Lord Shackleton—a Labour peer appointed to review the legislation by a Labour Government. He said:
On the question of who should authorise the extensions of detention, I see no alternative to the Secretary of State. It has been suggested that the courts could do this. But the information on which the police justify the need for an extension is usually sensitive and cannot be disclosed without the risk of endangering lives or impeding police inquiries. I doubt that these difficulties could be fully met even if the courts were to consider these matters in secrecy … I believe it is right that such a power be exercised by the Secretary of State, who can be called upon at short notice to account for his actions in Parliament.
Those who advocate transferring to the judiciary the power to authorise detention before charge need to ask themselves whether decisions based on intelligence material can really be considered appropriate for judicial consideration. The Government's view is that the course which the Opposition advocate would blur the clear division of roles between the Executive and the judiciary. We would be asking the judges to perform what is, in essence, an Executive function.
The intelligence material on which police applications are based cannot, by its very nature, be disclosed to the defence. Therefore, it would not be possible for the defence to prepare its case. Nor would it be possible for judges' decisions to state the reasons underlying them. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to construct a judicial appeal procedure.
I am absolutely sure that to attempt to involve the judiciary, but under such constraints that judges could not apply the procedures and principles under which they normally operate, is a far more unsatisfactory course than the limited derogation from the convention which the Government have made.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is not it a fact that in Europe, where a contrary view is taken, most of the judges are civil servants who are used to taking administrative decisions?

Mr. Howard: My hon. and learned Friend is right to make that distinction. There is a further distinction in that the decisions which they make are, for the most part, entirely different from the ones which are presently under consideration.
Therefore, so long as the need for the decisions continues, I believe that they will have to be left to the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament for the exercise of his powers and whose decisions are scrutinised each year by an independent reviewer with extensive legal experience. It would be very convenient for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and me to shed those onerous responsibilities, but while the need remains we shall continue to discharge our duty.

Mr. Tom King: Is not there another point, about which those who are concerned about the proper rights of an individual should be worried and to which my


hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) has just referred? If the decision passes to perhaps a judicial authority, would not that, under the European convention on human rights, give judges the power to extend far more the time during which people could be confined without charge? Am I right in saying that those who were arrested by the French authorities for the Eksund shipment were kept two years without being charged, whereas the limitation under our legislation is extremely strict and, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, not normally more than five days?

Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend speaks with great experience in these matters. I believe that he is right in what he says. His point demonstrates that, as is so often the case, the Opposition completely miss the substance of the point in the attitude which they take and strive instead for some illusory shadow which would profit no one.
I turn now to exclusion orders. At the end of 1993, 71 persons remained subject to an exclusion order made by the Home Secretary—a reduction of eight since 31 December 1992 and the lowest figure at the end of any year since 1975. The number of orders in force on the strength of decisions made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland remained constant at nine. Each order remains in force for three years, unless revoked before then. At the end of the three-year period the case is looked at afresh in the light of all the circumstances, including an up-to-date intelligence assessment. In some instances, fresh orders are made; in others, they are allowed to lapse without replacement.
Mr. Rowe states that he is satisfied that all the participants in the procedure for exclusion orders have acted carefully. I thoroughly endorse his comments about the three independent advisers, to whom representations against exclusion orders are referred. The role which they play is an important safeguard for the individual and I thank them for their work during the past year. In his report Mr. Rowe rightly acknowledges that opinion on the value of exclusion orders is not unanimous, but he also notes that there are strong arguments in favour of their retention, and it is my clear view that those arguments are decisive.
The restrictions on the movement of the 80 people currently excluded are wholly justified by the contribution that the restrictions make to preventing acts of terrorism. As the number of people excluded is small, there are those who argue that it would make little difference if the restriction on their movements were lifted. I do not accept that for a moment. The powers are used very sparingly in recognition of their exceptional nature. Do those who oppose them seriously suggest that restrictions on the movement of those who have been involved in terrorism have no effect?
The police are clear that, as a preventive measure, exclusion is a useful weapon in their armoury. It disrupts the movement of terrorists in both directions across the Irish sea and it reduces the pool of personnel on whom the terrorists can safely draw.
The police do not believe that the alternative measures that have been suggested—such as mounting surveillance operations on all those who would at present be excluded —are remotely realistic. When the police and the Security Service have their work cut out to prevent attacks and track down those responsible for preparing them, how can

Opposition Members justify making that task more difficult? How can they justify the extra risks that would be imposed on our constituents?
Ten years ago this year Patrick Magee tried to blow up the Cabinet at the Conservative party conference. The following year he returned from Ireland with others who planned to mount an unprecedented series of attacks at seaside resorts in the south of England, including Folkestone in my constituency. Magee and his associates were arrested and detained for several days before being charged because of the powers available in the prevention of terrorism Act. My constituents know that those are powers for which Conservatives have consistently voted for the past 20 years. Had the Labour party been in power in 1985, those powers would not have been available for the protection of the people of Folkestone. They would not be available now for the protection of the people of Belfast, Warrington, Tyneside or Haringey.

Mr. Alun Michael: Cheap points.

Mr. Howard: That is the truth of the matter, and for the hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, to describe those points as cheap is nothing short of disgraceful.
The powers were needed when the legislation was introduced by Lord Jenkins in 1974. From 1974 to 1980 they were supported by the Labour party. Since 1983 it has opposed them.
The chairman of the terrorism committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers has made it clear to me—perhaps Opposition Members will listen—that the
retention of the Act in its present form is an essential weapon in the armoury of counter terrorism.
No party that is prepared to deny that essential weapon to the brave police officers who have to confront the evil men at whom the powers are aimed is remotely fit to govern this country. Conservatives are committed to their maintenance for so long as the need for them continues. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Tony Blair: I shall begin by giving a brief resume of the history of the legislation. I shall then examine the changes that have, over time, been made to it. I shall then repeat the offer that has been made to the Government, which I believe will find much support in the House—to try to reach a consensus on the issue, take it out of the political divide and resolve it properly.
First, let us be clear what is not in dispute. It is not in dispute, and never has been, that we need anti-terrorist legislation. It is not in dispute that the powers of the prevention of terrorism Act in respect of detention on the grounds of involvement in terrorism should remain. We do not seek to review the powers of proscription and attachment of terrorist funds. We in the House share a total and complete abhorrence of terrorism and a desire to defeat it.
However, we say that the powers are exceptional, and we hope that the whole House can agree with that. We hope that the House can also agree that the powers breach the normal rules of law in our legal system, of which we are justifiably proud, and that we should countenance them only to the extent that they are genuinely necessary to defeat the threat of terrorism.
That is so for reasons of the rule of law, but also for practical reasons. The IRA, which is incapable of making


a decent democratic case in defence of its position, uses aspects of the legislation ruthlessly as a stick with which to pillory Britain abroad. Speeches made in the United States of America recently have been littered with references to the legislation.
It is plainly sensible and in everyone's interests, quite apart from being right as a matter of constitutional law, to go as far, but no further, than we need in abrogating the normal processes of law. That is the issue between us, and if the Home Secretary were prepared to analyse it in a decent and sensible way, as opposed to ranting at us for the purpose of making the political divide greater, he would do a service to everyone concerned with such matters.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): rose—

Mr. Blair: I will give way in a moment.
This used to be recognised throughout the House. The great distinction between the speech that we have just heard and earlier speeches on the prevention of terrorism from the Government side, whether a Labour or a Conservative Government, is that, until very recently, they have always repeated the distaste felt by everyone for these measures. They have been justified, but there has been some semblance of the thought that these are serious steps that are being taken.
That is why they are called "temporary provisions." It is why we debate them every year. As Lord Whitelaw said in 1982, they make
 a considerable inroad into the civil liberties of which we are justly proud".—[Official Report, 15 March 1982; Vol. 20, c. 151.]
In 1978, because this was the only way of securing the renewal of the Act, Lord Shackleton was asked to conduct a full review. He did so, and among the other things that the Home Secretary did not quote from his report, he said this:
The longer the exclusion power continues, the stronger will be the case against it, and I believe the Government should reconsider this issue.
So, far from it being strange for Opposition Members to raise them, exclusion orders used to be raised by those on the Government Benches when they were in opposition, and as a result changes were made to them. Changes were made that, in particular, after three years they must be reconsidered. There was a further report by Lord Jellicoe in 1983. Sir Cyril Phillips, himself a distinguished High Court judge, was critical of exclusion orders in 1985, and suggested ways in which they might be circumvented, and that was repeated in the last full review of the legislation in 1987 by Lord Colville.
I say that in part to show that, throughout this period, it is not merely that changes have been made—in respect not just of exclusion orders but in the treatment of suspects, the procedures for detention and dealing with terrorist funds —but also to emphasise that it was never the case that the legislation was written in stone. It was always there to be reviewed, analysed and reassessed because of its importance.

Mr. Fabricant: When the hon. Gentleman proceeds to try to water down this order, and when he has thought of the thousand people killed or injured last year and of the two young soldiers killed on Lichfield railway station, will he remember that it is the police today—not Lord Jellicoe in 1983, but the police today—who want the order passed as it stands? Does he look forward to the total defeat of terrorism, or does he merely look behind him at the disloyalty of his own Back Benchers?

Mr. Blair: That is an example of what we have been saying. There they go again: they cannot debate this in a reasonable way.

Mr. Howard: With respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) asked a perfectly reasonable question, based on the view of the police now. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said earlier that we should go as far as, but no further than, we need. The chairman of the terrorism committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers says:
The retention of the Act in its present form is an essential weapon in the armoury of counter terrorism.
Why does the hon. Gentleman think that his judgment of what we need is to be preferred to that of the chairman of the terrorism committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers?

Mr. Blair: It is not my judgment that is to be preferred to his. What we are debating, as I shall show, are views expressed not just by the Labour party but over a very broad range.
As I said at the beginning, we are not opposed to the principle of legislation in this area, or to the main powers that are in the legislation. If the Home Secretary would listen to the points we make and consider them, and accept that we are trying to reach agreement, I think that he would find them reasonable.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Blair: I shall give way from right to left, and then I must get on.

Mr. Michael Bates: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the views of the police, who are often in the front line in the fight against terrorism, are critical. What consultations has he had with police organisations on the subject of the renewal of this legislation, and what representations has he received from those organisations urging him to vote against it?

Mr. Blair: I shall deal in detail with some of the objections to the points that I am raising. What has to be determined is whether the points we make are reasonable. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I told the Home Secretary this morning, it is our case that there should be a full and independent review, agreed by the two sides of the House and conducted by a distinguished figure, to determine precisely whether these powers are necessary or whether there is another way of dealing with the situation.
The view of the police must be taken into account, but it is also important that there be a review of the extent to which what we seek could be achieved otherwise. That is what we are asking for, and it is hardly unreasonable.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is prepared to ignore, or fails to take fully into account, the views of the police. What about members of the Labour party? For example, Lord Mason, who held the office of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has said that nothing gives the IRA more joy and encouragement than to see a divided House, and especially the image created by some within Parliament of seeming to be too protective of the terrorists and their political allies, rather than wishing their destruction. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. If we do not have a little quiet, I shall start picking off other people.

Mr. Heald: Is it not important that we take full account of the views of the police, who are fighting the terrorists, and of members of the Labour party who have the experience of office? The hon. Gentleman has not had that experience; those who have believe that the legislation is vital. Why is the hon. Gentleman so arrogant as to ignore their advice?

Mr. Blair: We are not ignoring their advice. That is precisely why, as I shall explain later, we have said that there should be a full review, in which these matters can be taken into account. If the hon. Gentleman is confident of his position, he should agree to that. Why does he not agree? Because, as a Conservative, he prefers to treat this matter as an issue of party divide rather than of party agreement.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: The hon. Gentleman confirms that he wishes to disregard the views of the police. Does he think that voting against this order will help or hinder terrorism? It is as simple as that.

Mr. Blair: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has not listened to my reply. I am not saying that my view should be preferred to that of the police. That is precisely my reason for saying that the objections received from a very broad range of opinion should be properly tested. That is what Conservative members are disagreeing with. The Home Secretary mentioned Lord Merlyn-Rees. Earlier today, Lord Merlyn-Rees confirmed that he would support a full and independent review. That is the answer to many of the points that have been made.

Lady Olga Maitland: If the hon. Gentleman believes in abandoning exclusion orders, does not it follow naturally that he is opening up the floodgates to terrorists coming to the British mainland? Does not he accept the warning that was issued by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), in 1974? I refer to this very salutary comment:
It would be most sad, however, if we were to worry now too much about the curtailment of liberty and later to have upon our consciences the deaths of our fellow citizens."—[Official Report, 28 Nov 1974; Vol. 882, c. 700.]

Mr. Blair: rose—

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's splendid speech, but I must ask whether it would not have saved a great deal of time if the Conservative office brief, from which Conservative members have been reading, had been placed in full in the Library?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time, and he knows very well that that is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Blair: Unfortunately, like so much else that the Conservative party does, the brief is incompetent and inaccurate.
The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 was never intended to be written in stone. On the contrary, because of its exceptional nature, it was to be kept under constant review for the very purpose of changing it when necessary and timely. That was especially so in respect of exclusion orders. We believe that it is now right to consider two aspects of change. I shall mention them in turn.
There are other issues. There is the question of the audio or video recording of suspects' interviews. Trials are apparently on foot on the mainland, but there is nothing as yet in Northern Ireland. Sir Louis Blom-Cooper was asked to report on the conduct of detention centres in Northern Ireland, and his report will be published next week. It is unfortunate that we do not have it today.
There are therefore other issues, but there are two main ones. They are not quibbles, as some people would say, and they do not destroy the 1989 Act, as the Home Secretary says. They are substantial and serious none the less.
The first issue is that of the means of extending detention. At present, under the normal law, if one is a child murderer, a rapist, an armed robber or involved in organised crime, one can be detained only on suspicion of a specific offence; one is detained for 36 hours but then must be brought before a court, and after some days must then be charged.
Under the 1989 Act, detention takes place if there is a reasonable suspicion that one has been involved in general acts of terrorism, not necessarily related to a specific act. One can be held for 48 hours and then the detention is extended for up to a further five days, making seven days in all. Those powers are self-evidently highly exceptional —all the more reason for them to be subject to proper judicial control if possible.
There is a need for the exceptional power to detain and the period of detention—I accept that. That is the exceptional nature of the power, because there can be occasions when the security services, for various reasons, have to obtain evidence or make forensic checks of one type or another. However, unless there is a good reason to the contrary, deprivation of liberty should take place through a court. That is what the European Court ruled under the European convention, and it may have ruled that the derogation was within the Government's possibility of power, but it did not resile from its earlier ruling.
One of the things that I find so extraordinary about the Home Secretary's attempt to present the proposal as destructive of the whole nature of the work of the security services is that when the matter was mentioned before, during the passage of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill in January 1989, the then Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, said:
Of course we would have preferred not to derogate, and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West"—
now the noble Lord Archer—
was right when he said that this is not a subject to be taken lightly as a matter of convenience. We continue to look for a judicial mechanism."—[Official Report, 30 January 1989; Vol. 146, c. 65.]

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Blair: I will give way in a moment.

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Blair: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgive me? I will give way in a moment.
Lord Colville, when he wrote his report in 1991, also drew attention to those problems and the way in which they might be circumvented.

Mr. Howard: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's reluctance to give way. [Interruption.] On that specific point, following my right hon. Friend's suggestion in 1988 that we seek a way of involving the judiciary in that power, a review was carried out, and the result of that review was


announced to the House, as I said earlier, by the Foreign Secretary's successor as Home Secretary in November 1989. Therefore, we did carry out that review.
We have considered whether there might be a different way to achieve that objective, and we have come to the conclusion that there is not. We cannot be accused of not looking to see whether there are other ways of doing it.

Mr. Blair: My argument to the Home Secretary is that it was not that the present Foreign Secretary, when Home Secretary, was ruling that out on the grounds of security. He said that he would seek a judicial mechanism. He did not rule it out as inconsistent with the purposes of the 1989 Act.
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, has left his place. I thought it extraordinary when he intervened earlier, because this is what he said in respect of the power of detention in December 1988:
It would be more acceptable to many of us to require a judicial element—a judge, if there is no problem of availability, or a stipendiary magistrate … But what is needed is that the public should have confidence that injustice is not being done by the procedures. I think that a judicial element would meet that requirement."—[Official Report, 6 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 232.]
We can agree or disagree on whether that is necessary, but it is patently absurd to suggest that, by advocating a judicial element, one is destroying the security basis of the legislation.

Mr. Gary Streeter: rose—

Mr. Blair: I will give way in a moment.
Not merely did they all say that, but I discovered last night that the Government's Standing Commission on Human Rights in 1988 said the same: it said that there should be a judicial element. The idea that that is something beyond the ken of any reasonable person to propose is patently absurd. Every time that Conservative Members make that type of argument, they simply underline the degree to which they are prepared to be unreasonable in making their case.

Mr. Streeter: rose—

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Robin Corbett: No, no —don't give way to him.

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Blair: I will give way to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), because he was up first. Then I will have to get on.

Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He must accept that it is quite an amusing spectacle watching him try to defend the indefensible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues vote against the measure tonight, what message does that send to terrorists?

Mr. Blair: I have sent the clearest possible message of what we believe. The only people trying to send a different message in respect of the Opposition are Conservative Members. That is the absurdity.

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Blair: I will give way to the Home Secretary, but then I must get on.

Mr. Howard: As these are important topics, I want to do the hon. Gentleman the credit of taking his argument seriously.
It is true that my predecessor, now the Foreign Secretary, said that he would seek a way to involve the judiciary in the decision-making process. So did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). The nature of the investigation which was then carried out was to see whether we could find a way to involve the judiciary which would not undermine the exercise of the power and deprive it of its practical effect.
We came to the conclusion that there was no such way, as was announced by the noble Lord Waddington in November 1989. It is no good the hon. Gentleman ignoring that investigation and its outcome. We have considered it; there is no such way. The hon. Gentleman must face that.

Mr. Blair: That is incorrect. That was never the reason that was given.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: As someone who was in the House when the original legislation was passed just after the Birmingham pub bombings, the perpetrators of which have not yet been put in prison even though the legislation has been in place for 20 years, may I say to my hon. Friend that the British public who are watching the debate are entitled to expect grown-up politics to operate in the House today?
I remind my hon. Friend that I have never yet voted against the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, because I have always been conscious, even with its defects, of the connection with the Birmingham pub bombings and carnage that day. However, I will vote against the measure tonight, simply on the grounds of the Home Secretary's performance in the past few days, including his speech today, because it does not constitute serious grown-up politics, which the people of this country are entitled to expect.

Mr. Blair: I do not think that any hon. Member will underestimate the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend or his determination to combat terrorism.
It is said that what is involved is not a judicial process: the argument—the only argument there is, in fact—is that the nature of the process of deciding an extension of detention is not truly a judicial one and is incapable of being dealt with other than by executive act. Precisely that argument was rejected in the European Court, but let me deal with it myself.
What is the purpose of having an element of judicial control? It is not simply to provide a process of legal reasoning or logic; it is that that judicial element is independent of executive action. The liberty of the subject should be taken away not by the act of a politician but by a court of law. That is the basic point. The debate is not simply an abstract debate about the nature of the process of reasoning: it is a fundamental debate about the nature of liberty, and those who have the right to deprive people of liberty. That is why it would be so much better to have that judicial element, as was accepted some years ago, even by Conservative Members.
In respect of exclusion orders, I must say to the Home Secretary that he is a man who cannot make a case without exaggerating it out of existence. The idea that, by opposing


exclusion orders, one is making an outrageous attack on the entire nature of our fight against terrorism is patently absurd when considered against the historical background. First, nothing has been more contentious than exclusion orders, and nothing has ever been expressed to be more temporary—as was the case throughout the 1970s and 1980s.
Exclusion orders have been strongly criticised by many. For example, Enoch Powell said in February 1987:
The inherent objectionableness of a power to exclude from one part of the United Kingdom into another is undiminished, but the evidence for utility continues to diminish. I hope that we shall see the end of it, certainly no later than the new edition of this Act."—[Official Report, 10 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 277.]
I discovered last night that the then Home Secretary, now Foreign Secretary, sent Sir Cyril Phillips a letter—a public letter, although it does not appear to have received much publicity—when Sir Cyril conducted his review of the Act. The then Home Secretary wrote:
I entirely accept that the exclusion powers, especially those under sections 4 and 5 which permit the exclusion of a British citizen from part of the United Kingdom, very considerably infringe ordinary civil liberties. I think it very proper to remind Parliament that these powers are controversial and that it is possible to discontinue while still renewing other parts of the Act.
I fully understand that the Home Secretary came down in favour of retaining the powers. However, I put it to Conservative Members that it can hardly be said to be unreasonable to argue that the powers should be properly, fully and seriously reviewed independently to see whether they need to be maintained or not—indeed, the last full review, that of Lord Colville, suggested that they go. That is the answer to the paint made a moment ago.
It is worth spending a moment considering why the orders have aroused such controversy. First, they represent a form of internal exile. That cannot be disputed. They allow complete freedom of movement within Northern Ireland to people excluded from the mainland, and complete freedom of movement on the mainland to those excluded from Northern Ireland, so they are, by their nature, odd. Conservative Members may wish to consider that they are in one sense essentially anti-unionist.
Secondly, they involve someone being deemed or dubbed a terrorist not by a court of law but by an executive order. The Home Secretary can make an exclusion order only if he is satisfied—not merely if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting—that someone is a terrorist. There is no trial. There are no representations. There is no ability to know the evidence. There is no effective appeal.
s
It is not that, as Mr. Rowe said, exclusion orders are simply an infringement of freedom of movement; it is that the person is then deemed to be a terrorist. He does not know the evidence and he cannot appeal against it. He then becomes a target for other terrorist activity. That is why the matter has now been referred to the European Court by our own Court of Appeal.

Rev. Martin Smyth: We in Northern Ireland look askance on the leper colony aspect at times. But there was a judicial review—there was a trial in London. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what London people would say about the case of a person who was acquitted by a court in London; who said that he was not a terrorist and disagreed with terrorism; who was excluded

under the Act; and who was buried in County Tyrone as second in command of the Tyrone battalion of the Provos, shot in a gunfight with the Army?

Mr. Blair: As the hon. Gentleman knows, many of those of the Ulster Unionist persuasion have been against exclusion orders. That is not because people do not condemn terrorism—they do. It is because they think that we must see whether, in attempting to use the security services to weed out terrorism, we do so in a way that is fully compatible with the ordinary rule of law.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: rose—

Mr. Graham Riddick: rose—

Mr. Blair: I am sorry. I must get on.
I entirely accept that an argument can be advanced in favour of exclusion orders. I do not take the unreasonable position described by the Government: I do not say that no one can reasonably argue the case for them. What I say is that it is so clear that they are potentially open to abuse that it is right that they should be fully and independently reviewed—as happened seven years ago—to see whether they are still necessary.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair: All right.

Mr. Maclennan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As he appealed earlier for cross-party support in this matter, he might have some interest in what I have to say.
I find his argument in favour of an independent review of some different kind from the report of Mr. John Rowe —an eminent former chairman of the Bar Council—extremely difficult to understand. We have before us a very thorough report, whose author has consulted all those closely involved in the day-to-day conduct of security matters and which does not stand on its own but is one of a series of annual reports.
The hon. Gentleman will acquit me of the charge of seeking to divide the House on this issue, because he knows that I have always favoured cross-party agreement where possible. It appears to me likely, however, that the lack of consensus on the issue is between those in his own party and not across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Blair: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. First, the previous report—undertaken by Lord Colville in 1987—which was a full and independent review, recommended that exclusion orders should go. The hon. Gentleman's point is therefore particularly foolish.
Secondly, Mr. Rowe's report examines not whether the powers are necessary but whether they have been properly operated within the definition in the legislation. The hon. Gentleman has not understood the point that I am making.

Mr. Mallon: Lest there be any doubt about it, I should point out that Mr. Rowe did not consult widely about this matter within Northern Ireland. He did not consult my party or, I understand, the Ulster Unionists, and many other organisations that should have been consulted were not. I therefore regard the report as deficient.

Mr. Blair: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is entirely right. I do not suppose that anyone would say that those from the Ulster Unionist side were not committed to


the fight against terrorism, but Ulster Unionists, too, see the purpose of reviewing the necessity for exclusion orders.

Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair: No. I have been immensely generous in giving way.
It is because of those objections, and because we wanted to see whether there was not a different way—in accordance with the normal rule of law—of meeting the same objectives, that we attempted to secure serious discussions with the Government. We did so because we know that, when we strip away the political rhetoric, we share the same objectives of deterring and defeating terrorism—but also because we want to uphold our traditional rule of law and the principles that go with it. In attempting to balance those competing purposes, we should engage in discussions without rancour, or accusing each other of being soft on terrorism, and with a genuine desire to find agreement.
The Government say that they want such agreement. The Home Secretary said today that he wanted an all-party approach. They used to criticise us for seeking change in the way we did, and they asked us to do it differently. Indeed, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) first defined our objections to the Acts, the Government suggested how we should object. The then Home Office Minister, who is now the Secretary of State for Education, said:
If he"—
that is, my right hon. Friend—
were really interested in serious discussions with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and had a list of things he wanted to discuss … surely he should have gone to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, perhaps on Privy Councillor terms, to talk to him about the sort of chances he wanted."—[Official Report, 4 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 66.]
That is what we have done. How was that action met by the new Home Office regime? It was met not only with a refusal to consider our proposals, but with an out-of-hand rejection. The story was then planted in the press before we had even received the courtesy of a reply. That is not seeking agreement in the interests of peace and security; it is playing politics with the issue.
Moreover, we have not even asked the Government to agree immediately to our objections. We do not expect them to go "Snap," but have merely asked them seriously to consider the proposals, as the former Secretary of State for Education asked us to do. One way to achieve that would be to undertake a full and independent review of the judicial process under a senior respected figure, on whom we could agree with the Government, the Ulster Unionists, the Social Democratic and Labour party and other interested parties.
We could examine that and other aspects of the prevention of terrorism Act, to point the way towards its improvement. It has been seven years since the last full review, and that was conducted by a Government adviser. It is almost decade since Sir Cyril Phillips, a High Court judge, considered the matter. It is high time to consider the process again. As I said earlier, Lord Merlyn-Rees, a distinguished former Labour Home Secretary supports such a review.
Much has changed in the past year. There has been a joint declaration and a new search for peace. We have joined the Government in those initiatives. We have attempted to rise above party differences—whatever they

may be—to search for peace. We refrained from exploiting the issue when it was revealed that the Government had been in talks with the IRA, although they publicly denied that fact.
One other major change has occurred. The IRA's last remaining argument has been removed. It has lost its last vestige of respectability because, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, it refuses even to support self-determination. It seeks unity by the bomb, not through the ballot box. We should shout that from the rooftops. By using that argument, there is a chance of uniting all democratic elements against the undemocratic terrorists to turn the tide, not only in security terms, but politically.
So much has changed and can be achieved; that is why it is important that we should try to bring the House together, and why I urge the Home Secretary even now to consider our requests in the spirit in which they were made, to unite the House, and to defeat the terrorism that we all detest.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The one way to unite the House would be for Opposition Members to support the Government in the Lobby tonight.
The speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) had been trailed as embarking on a new initiative. I assume that his speech included the views that the Leader of the Opposition voiced to the Prime Minister in the talks that took place. Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, I do not think that it marks a new beginning. It reminded me of speeches by his predecessors as shadow Home Secretaries, the right hon. Members for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), and for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). In 1990, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made five similar proposals, questioning the need for the extension of detention and for the exclusion orders. The only new item in the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield concerned the independent review. I am sceptical whether such a review would achieve anything.
There has been a bit of party banter, but I do not believe that any Opposition Member supports or condones terrorism. My experience as a Minister and Member of Parliament has assured me that that is the case. Opposition Members' protests against terrorism can be just as eloquent and strong as those from Conservative Members. It is not sufficient, however, only to condemn terrorism and its aims; one should be prepared to will the means to defeat terrorism. That is where one has to take difficult, executive decisions.
The history of the prevention of terrorism Acts has been well rehearsed by both Front-Bench spokesmen. It was put on the statute book by Roy Jenkins. Every Home Secretary, of any party, who has exercised the Act's powers has confirmed that they were necessary, as has each Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and there are many quotations to confirm that. As a Minister who had to exercise those powers, I have no doubt that they are necessary.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield reminded us that my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw said that the Act was an infringement of civil constitutional rights. The House has to examine the matter carefully when it decides about such rights, especially when it has to decide whether to curtail


them. It has to be satisfied that there is a reason for curtailment and that there is a reasonable process to ensure that the exercise of executive power is done fairly and properly.
The decisions that I had to make were not taken lightly. One reviews each case carefully because one knows that one's signature on a piece of paper will either extend the period of investigation of a suspect or exclude someone from one part of the United Kingdom. I took those decisions carefully as, I am sure, did my predecessors and successors.
Under the powers of exclusion, there is a procedure for review.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: When the right hon. Gentleman had to exercise those powers, how did he weigh in his mind the fact that the people whom he was excluding from the mainland of Great Britain were a danger and were involved in terrorism and that he was sending them back to a Province that had already borne the brunt of that terrorism? Did he not feel that there was a danger that he was concentrating all the killing and violence on those who had already borne the most pain?

Mr. Baker: I never felt that. The security and safety of the public in the whole country, not just on the mainland, is almost the prime consideration of any Home Secretary. Other Ministers have specific responsibilities for Northern Ireland.
The Opposition changed their view in 1983. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary sketched the history of that conversion, which was not sudden. After the Labour party lost office in 1979, it split on the first vote on the PTA. The noble Lord Merlyn-Rees voted for the extension of the Act. The Labour party abstained in the vote in the following two years. In 1983, it decided to vote against the Act.
Ever since, the shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Sedgefield, and his two predecessors have been trying to get the Labour party off that awkward hook. It is impaled on it largely because of its left-wing and nationalist elements. The hon. Member for Sedgefield smiles, but he knows that what I am saying is true. He has advanced his arguments rather more elegantly than his predecessors, but his argument remains the same and the problem remains the same for the Labour party.
I now come to the exercise of the powers and the power of extension of investigation. Some 30 cases were brought to me. One must examines cases very carefully indeed. In several of those cases, the investigation led to a charge being laid. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that, of the 39 extensions for which he has been responsible, charges were laid in 17 cases—nearly half. That statistic proves the validity of the operation.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Sedgefield denies the operation, or the need of it, but he says that it should be subject to judicial process. That is an easy thing to say, but ultimately it is an executive decision. The House has given that power to a member of the Executive, principally the Home Secretary, but on occasions the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I believe that it should remain an executive decision.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in the arguments against that approach that it would be difficult to devise a judicial process that was justiciable. It would be impossible, for example, to reveal to the defence at that stage of the examination the security evidence that would lead the Home Secretary to make the decision for the extension. I do not believe that that is an appropriate solution. I believe that our derogation is correct.
I used the power of exclusion several times. I used it in the case to which the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) referred. The case involved someone who was accused of terrorism in this country. He went on trial and was found not guilty. On the same day, I excluded him. I was attacked for that. He was found not guilty by the British courts, but I excluded him because I believed that there was evidence that he was likely to engage in terrorist activities. He went back to Northern Ireland and was killed with three other terrorists engaged in an attack on the Coalisland police station. I believe, therefore, that these difficult decisions are sometimes necessary. That is why I hope that the House supports the order.

Mr. Clive Soley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: No. I shall sit down shortly.
I understand the difficulty that hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench are in. I have not tried to depict the hon. Member for Sedgefield, or indeed the Labour party, as soft on terrorism. Terrorist activities are not lessened in our country. Look at the number of arrests that have been made in the past few months—I warmly congratulate the police and security forces on effecting those arrests—after the Downing street declaration. Cells in this country are still operating, planning to maim, kill and destroy. Terrorists do not have debates such as this. They do not debate whether there should be a stay of execution when the bullets are passed out and when they are told to kill their victims. They do not decide whether there should be an extension of interrogation when torturing somebody for more than 48 hours, or less than that.
I would not say that any Government must put themselves to the level of terrorists, but Governments must make difficult decisions. In this area, those decisions are the most difficult. Because of the way in which I saw the powers operated by my colleagues and by me, I believe that the decisions were conducted fairly and properly. I do not believe that injustice was done. Indeed, I believe that the security of the country was greater because of them.

Mr. David Trimble: Before launching into what has obviously been the controversial point in the debate so far, I should restate the position of the Ulster Unionist party. We support the legislation. We believe that it is necessary, and that it is necessary this evening for the House to renew the legislation. The only issue that is before the House is whether the Act in its present form should be renewed. We support that. None the less, I wish to say a little on the two items that have been discussed so far.
To a certain extent, I agree with some of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). That is nothing new. If hon. Members look at our contribution to the debate last year, they will see that we have some concerns about the exclusion orders and the


way in which the seven-day detention power is authorised. We feel that there are matters that can be looked at. I have no doubt that the seven-day power is needed. I do not wish hon. Members to misunderstand that. I am not suggesting in any way that there should be a reduction in the power to detain people for that period.
It is interesting to look at the statistics. Looking at the United Kingdom as a whole, of the 495 extensions, nearly half have exceeded the four-day period—the period that the European Court fastened on in the Brogan case—thus showing that there is a need to go beyond that period. Some 66 detentions went the full seven days. It is interesting that, in Northern Ireland, full seven-day detentions were only 12 per cent. of the total detentions, but the figure was much higher in Great Britain. Of the 29 extensions in England and Wales, nine went the full seven days; of the 10 extensions in Scotland, four went the full seven days. That underlines the need to retain the power to extend detentions for up to seven days in some cases.
We then come to the problem presented by the decision of the European Court on Brogan. Brogan is the problem. I do not think that the Brannigan case gets us out of the difficulty. It has been the policy of the Government over the years, rightly so, to try to frame anti-terrorist legislation to avoid the need to derogate and to restrict derogations to situations where they are absolutely essential, and not derogate as a matter of course. Although the European Court upheld derogation of the Brannigan case, I do not think that we can be satisfied with that. If we can find a way to meet the problem, we should seriously look at it.
Article 5(3) of the European convention refers to people being
brought promptly before a Judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial onwer.
We should focus on that phrase.
I am disappointed that, so far in the debate this afternoon, hon. Members are assuming that the alternative to the present procedure is one involving, say, a High Court judge and court proceedings as they are commonly understood in this jurisdiction. That is not the way to proceed. I quite agree with people who say that one cannot involve the judges in the normal way and that one cannot have a hearing in which the intelligence material on which the police desire to detain a person is disclosed to the defendant and the defence adviser, but what is wrong is that people are thinking of conventional court proceedings.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) pointed in his brief intervention to the way out of that. He referred to the continent and France, where people are detained for much longer periods. Those detentions are entirely consistent with the European convention, because they are authorised by a judicial officer. They are not authorised as a result of normal court proceedings on the English common law model, with someone having his or her day in court and barristers and solicitors being briefed on either side; a French juge d' instruction operates on a dossier that contains material, some of which would be admissible in an English court and some of which would not. He considers the dossier and looks at the matters.
That is the sort of proceedings of which we should think. We should think in terms of creating a procedure whereby a judicial officer takes a decision on the basis of a file, which may contain intelligence material disclosed to him and to no one else. It is not the normal court proceedings. It may not strike hon. Members steeped in

English common law tradition as court proceedings, but it would satisfy the European convention, because it would be a decision taken by a person who is independent of the judiciary and accustomed to analysing the material. That solution, which was hinted at by Lord Colville in earlier reports, should be considered. It is not that foreign to proceedings in at least one of the jurisdictions in the United Kingdom—Scotland, with its procurator fiscal—which bear so many similarities to the continental systems.
A problem arises because the European Court is staffed mainly by people who operate against the background of a civil law tradition; we are in difficulties with regard to that. There is no problem in adapting our procedures to fit in with my proposed solution.
Reference has been made to the statement by Lord Waddington, then Home Secretary, in 1989. I have examined that statement, and it seems to me that Lord Waddington was not willing to consider the radical new procedure that I have just outlined—that he, too, was thinking in terms of conventional court proceedings. In my view, such proceedings would be inappropriate in this context.
I hinted briefly at my proposed solution in a speech in our equivalent debate last year. I have spelt it out in a little more detail today, because I do not think that hon. Members have considered it sufficiently. I do not know whether the review conducted some years ago, to which the Home Secretary referred, considered such a procedure. Lord Waddington's 1989 statement does not hint at any consideration on his part. I shall be interested to hear whether any reference is made to it in the Home Secretary's winding-up speech.
There has also been some controversy about exclusion orders. I am happy to reiterate the stance that my hon. Friends and I have taken over the years. We consider exclusion orders to be objectionable in principle. I refer to exclusion orders that operate within the United Kingdom, banning people from one part of it and—as hon. Members have said—creating a form of internal exile. We do not object to orders that exclude people from the United Kingdom; we think those quite appropriate. Such action is possible under immigration law, and this legislation simply adds to and reinforces that power.
Exclusion within the United Kingdom—which, as I have said, we find inherently objectionable—is not new or unique, as some hon. Members seem to believe; it repeats legislation introduced in the 1930s. At the time of an IRA bomb campaign launched in 1938, the House responded by introducing legislation that provided for a form of exclusion order. In 1974, faced with another emergency, civil servants in the Home Office blew the dust off the 1939 files and whipped out the legislation again. Wartime controls on movement across the Irish sea were also fairly stringent, but those were slightly different circumstances.
I think that exclusion orders are the lazy way of proceeding: because a precedent was there, people reached for it. There is some merit in examining other possibilities. It occurs to me—although this thought may not be welcome to other hon. Members—that exclusion orders operate on exactly the same legal basis as the power to intern. In terms of the factors that must be considered and the nature of the decision involved, there is no difference between making an exclusion order and internment. It could be said that exclusion orders mean treating Northern


Ireland as one huge internment camp. Some of my hon. Friends are asking, "If we are to take a decision of that nature, why not go the whole hog?"
Another suggested procedure is more detailed surveillance. That is worth looking into, although I do not think that it would be possible without compulsory identity cards, to which some hon. Members would object. We do not share that objection and think that the option should be seriously considered. In any event, however, the European Union may compel the Government to act, and some interesting proposals have been made in that context.
I noted with interest the hon. Member for Sedgefield's observation that no major review had been conducted for seven years. I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) about the current review, although I do not wish to go into the details. In the past, I have complimented Lord Colville on his reviews, which I have found very helpful but, as the hon. Member for Sedgefield pointed out, those reviews operate within the framework of reference provided by the existing legislation, to determine simply whether powers have been exercised within the terms of the Act. There has been no fundamental reconsideration of the legislation as a whole since 1987, and I see some merit in remedying that.
I would not want such a review to be conducted purely in terms of the prevention of terrorism Act; I think that it should examine anti-terrorism legislation generally. It should take up a point made repeatedly by my party—that there is considerable merit in consolidating the PTA and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. It is surely anomalous to retain two separate systems, given that they interlock and cannot be considered in isolation.
For example, the arrest power in the PTA is the primary arrest power used in Northern Ireland to deal with terrorism. The vast majority of detention extensions are made in Northern Ireland with regard to Northern Ireland terrorism. I hope that it is in order for me to refer to amendments that have been moved in the current Committee stage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. The Government have moved an amendment modifying both the PTA and the emergency provisions Act; they have moved new clauses that bring aspects of the latter into the former. That shows the extent to which the two codes overlap.
Never is a single, comprehensive code more necessary than when matters relating to terrorist financing are dealt with. I find it amazing—as did Lord Colville, who commented repeatedly on the fact—that we have two separate codes to deal with that. One relates only to Northern Ireland, the other to England and Wales—as if people thought that the terrorists had not learnt how to move money from London to Belfast, or from London or Belfast to the Isle of Man, the Channel islands or elsewhere. Of course they can do that, and we need more comprehensive legislation to deal with the position.
Page 18 of Mr.Rowe's report refers briefly to the channel tunnel, suggesting that it might enable terrorists to move in and out of the United Kingdom. Of course we should be concerned about that possibility, but we should also be concerned about the tunnel's being a potential target for terrorism. My right hon. Friend the Member for

Strangford (Mr. Taylor) mentioned that in a recent debate, referring to what I suppose could be called the Irish dimension. This, too, should be taken seriously.
The Home Secretary referred briefly to the Downing street declaration, describing it as imaginative. The word that comes to mind—particularly given our experience of the declaration—is "fantasy", rather than "imagination". At the time of the declaration, nearly three months ago, the comment was made—on behalf of both Governments—that if terrorists failed to accept the opportunity that the declaration gave them, there would have to be a governmental response and a security response. We have now been waiting nigh on three months; it is obvious that the terrorists will not accept the challenge of the Downing street declaration and abandon their campaign.
It is also obvious that the terrorists are engaged in stringing the Government along. I recall the Prime Minister visiting Belfast before Christmas, and saying very firmly that he would not be strung along by the terrorists. But he has been, and he still is. How much longer will Her Majesty's Government allow themselves to be suckered by the terrorists? How much longer will they allow themselves to be strung along? When will there be an appropriate response? When will the Government screw up their nerve to act? They must act; they cannot allow the present situation to continue.
Specific legislative measures are necessary. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is present. He will recall that in May last year the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary took the unusual step of calling publicly for certain changes in the law. I was informed recently that the Secretary of State was still thinking about those matters. I respectfully suggest that he has had long enough to think and should now be able to make up his mind. He may wish to consider some of the measures requested by the Chief Constable as an appropriate response to the current position.
As well as changes in the law, however, we need a change of policy. We need a clear and effective security policy directed at terrorism. It is not a matter of giving the terrorists deadlines; it is simply a matter of acting. That action will have to be sustained by an appropriate political approach designed to disappoint the terrorists, not encourage them. I am sorry to say that far too many of the Government's action in the past year have, in fact, encouraged terrorism and been a disappointment to politics.
Finally, the Home Secretary referred to what is called "loyalist terrorism". It is something that we abhor and condemn. There has been an increase in loyalist terrorism in the past few years, which is something we regret and wish had not happened. I am not providing excuses or justifications for it, but it is important to note that, over the years, there has been inverse relationship between incidents of loyalist terrorism and the level of confidence in the Government.
I can think of nothing that the Government have done in the past year that has increased confidence in their intentions and policies, but I can think of many things that have reduced confidence. I do not regard the Downing street declaration as the biggest problem in this respect. The biggest problem, and what has caused most dismay among my constituents, was the revelation of what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was pleased to call "contacts" between the Government and the Provisional


IRA—I believe that another word would be a more accurate description. Such contacts have significantly reduced the level of confidence.
I fear that, by their actions in the past few months, the Government have been sowing the wind. I hope that there will be no whirlwind. I appeal to all those who might be contemplating terrorist activities not to engage in them. I do not wish anything that I have said to be regarded as giving comfort to anyone involved, because my party condemns and abhors such terrorism. The Government have to think seriously about their responsibility in these matters. We wish to see terrorism defeated. We shall support the legislation tonight, but we see no good reason why consideration should not also be given to the details of the legislation and to ways in which they could perhaps be modified and improved to increase support for the legislation in the House.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I listened carefully to what he said and I agree with much of what he said. In a moment I shall briefly pick up on one or two of his observations.
Some repetitiveness inevitably characterises these debates. As has been said, this is the fifth time that we have debated the renewal order, and the ancestry of the debate goes back 20 years. More seasoned participants adopt a well entrenched position. I want to avoid repetitiveness as much as possible and develop primarily a matter that has today received little attention. However, in passing, I throw out a comment to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I listened with great care to the thesis that he propounded and I assure him that I do not for one moment doubt the absolute sincerity of his opposition to terrorism. However, his argument fails to convince.
I share the conclusion offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who has just left his seat, that the hon. Member for Sedgefield gives the impression that he is concerned primarily about watching his back and maintaining party unity. He does not convince us that the review of the type that he seeks is justified because the issues with which he is concerned are mainly those of the Executive, not the judiciary.
As for the Rowe report, I shall pass briefly over the emotive and controversial issues of exclusion orders, detention and the extension of detention except that I shall pick up on a theme raised by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. I do not share his negative assessment of exclusion orders. I noted with interest that on page 7 of the report Mr. Rowe writes:
The general view expressed to me … is that the exclusion order is a useful device in the prevention of terrorism.
I share that view because I believe that the value of exclusion orders lies largely in the fact that, when executed, they disrupt the command and communication structures of terrorist units. Without those command and communication structures being effective, the units cannot operate. In addition, the man or woman who is excluded becomes a marked person and it is then that much harder for a terrorist organisation to make use of him or her.
I wholeheartedly accept what the report has to say about detention orders and the extension of them. Page 14 of the report states:
My conclusion is that the power of extension of detention is necessary, and it should continue".

I am reassured by the argument that he summarises. He finds compatibility between the Act and article 15 of the European convention on human rights which refers to the exceptional circumstances of a
public emergency threatening the life of a nation".
Also in passing, I mention video/audio recording. Page 14 of the report states:
The RUC officers who have experience of investigation of terrorist offences express the view that their efforts would be impaired by a recording of interviews as suspects would be less ready to co-operate and give information.
I share that opinion. I acknowledge that it is a controversial issue and it is one to which Mr. Rowe said that he would return later.
It is important to realise the potential dangers of audio/video recording. One danger is that the identity of the interrogating officer might become known to terrorist organisations. Secondly, if a detainee co-operates and his co-operation becomes known to terrorist organisations, his family might be threatened. Of course, any public availability of interviews with detainees could well reveal intelligence sources and damage further security operations. One must tread very carefully indeed before embarking on compulsory video/audio recording.
The issue that I wish to emphasise is one that has received very little attention today. It is the chapter—if one can call it that—on how to attack terrorist funds. I regretted the fact that Mr. Rowe's comments on the matter were not more detailed. My main concern is that perhaps not enough has been achieved by the powers contained in the Act. On page 19 of his report Mr. Rowe states:
The first batch of sections, on contributions and forfeitures, have not as yet produced many prosecutions.
That puzzles me because I was not aware of any successful prosecutions. Unless I am misreading the appendix to the report, I can see no reference to statistics of that nature. It might be helpful next year if statistics and details of what is happening in terms of attacking terrorist funds were added to the report.
Mr. Rowe nevertheless concludes on page 19:
They"—
the powers of the Act relevant for attacking terrorist funds—
are not otiose; and they should be maintained as a significant part of the Act.
He identifies two reasons for that. The first is as follows:
Voluntary disclosures under section 12 are a regular event; there were 300 in 1993 … and the disclosures led to useful information.
On the following page, Mr. Rowe says that the machinery of section 17 and schedule 7
have uncovered racketeering schemes (which fund terrorism), and have disrupted the flow of money to terrorists.
Quality intelligence and the disruption of the flow of funds to terrorists are important achievements but they are not the primary purpose of the Act. The primary purpose of the powers is the confiscation of terrorist funds which, it seems, is not being achieved.
I am told that it is currently relatively easy to identify a commercial or financial enterprise in which terrorists may be involved. It is quite easy to identify that funds are going from such an enterprise to terrorists. The difficulty lies in producing the evidence which would convince a court that the funds that are being extracted from that operation are being used for terrorist purposes. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will take note that that issue should receive serious attention.
I should have thought it advisable either to assume that a known terrorist is using at least a portion of what he or she draws from commercial activity to promote terrorism, or to reverse the onus of proof so that commercial activities of known terrorists are assumed to be used to finance terrorism, unless he or she can prove otherwise. That point is worthy of further consideration.
Finally, perhaps the point most worthy of mention is that the renewal order should receive our full support. I regard it as an essential weapon in the armoury of the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The procedure which Parliament has in place for the annual review of this extraordinary legislation, which curbs normal liberties to which we adhere and regard as part of our civilisation, is necessary and important. It is important because it gives the House the opportunity to consider the justification for its continuance and to put forward any considerations that have arisen since it was last reviewed, which may lead to a change of view about its relevance and importance to the task to which it must contribute.
Since the past debate on the renewal of the PTA, the general picture of terrorism in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland must still give rise to deep concern. In Great Britain, there have been 49 terrorist incidents, three deaths and 124 persons injured. In Northern Ireland, there have been 730 incidents, 84 deaths and 826 people injured. In those circumstances, it must be said that terrorism remains a present threat, which we cannot in any way diminish.
The debate allows a further opportunity to pay tribute to all those in the armed services and in the security services who take enormous personal risks on behalf of us all and to whose judgment and advice we must pay especial attention.
Since we last considered the order, there have been two matters which merit consideration in the debate. The first is the Downing street declaration. It is with that and the Sinn Fein's response to it especially in mind, that I regard the initiative of the Labour party spokesman, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), as neither timely nor appropriate. His proposal that we should—

Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman is isolated and completely out of step.

Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Member wishes to intervene, I would be happy to give way.

Mr. Mandelson: Absolutely not.

Mr. Maclennan: I heard him say, and perhaps the Official Report has recorded, that he said that I was out of step. My view, which is widely shared, is that the proposal that there should be an inquiry is untimely and would send precisely the wrong signals to Sinn Fein, which is plainly not taking steps to distance itself from its military wing, and which rejected as recently as at its conference of the past weekend, the opportunity to pick up the challenge to renounce terrorism, put to it by no one more honourable than the leader of the SDLP, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). When Sinn Fein is showing no willingness to do that, it seems inappropriate that the House should

communicate any doubts about the necessity of continuing the battle against terrorism and of using those instrumentalities which the security forces in the country regard as appropriate for that task.
It is extremely unfortunate that we have not seen more progress towards the ending of terrorism in the past year, which may have made it appropriate to consider the effectiveness of especial aspects of the PTA. I am afraid that it is clear that those who are in charge of the security of our citizens have not in any way modified their view of the necessity of the Act in all its aspects.
That view is supported robustly and clearly by Mr. John Rowe in his report. It is playing with words to suggest that it is not any part of his job to consider the appropriateness or necessity of the measures contained in the Act. He quite explicitly states that the Act must be continued and makes no exception to his general view in the context of his consideration of its particular components.

Mr. Howard: On that point, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in previous years, points have been put to Mr. Rowe's predecessors on the scope of powers and the need for them, as well as the way in which the powers work in a practical fashion, and that, in the parliamentary answer which I gave, observations were invited to be submitted to Mr. Rowe when I announced his appointment? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the proper course for the Labour party to have taken, had it been serious about its intention of having the points which were raised by the hon. Member for Sedgefield considered by an independent person in the context of an independent review, was to put them to Mr. Rowe?

Mr. Maclennan: That is a perfectly reasonable assumption. It was open to the Labour party to raise the points if it had thought it appropriate. It would have been open for it to ask Mr. Rowe to consider whether a wider inquiry, involving more people, would have assisted him in the discharge of his task. I see no evidence that the Labour party chose to do that.
Whereas in previous years I may have been more sympathetic to the Labour party's proposals—on previous occasions I have also spoken of the desirability of an all-party approach to such matters—its current proposal is completely untimely and remarkably inapposite. It is not only inapposite in respect of the general operation of the Act, but in respect of the especial provisions to which the hon. Member for Sedgefield drew attention.
With regard to the extension of detention, I was among those who argued most strongly in the House with the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Foreign Secretary that steps should be taken to seek to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the Brogan case. I talked at length with the right hon. Gentleman about the practicality of so doing. I am certain that it is right that the extension of detention, under the terms of the Act, amounts to an executive decision and is not a purely judicial matter.
In order to try to bring the matter within the European convention, because I see how the fact that we have had to seek to abrogate our obligations under the convention could lead to our being put in the international dock of world opinion, I was prepared to go to great lengths to discover whether there were practical alternatives.
However, with the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Upper Bann, to whose views on such matters I always listen with great attention, I am not greatly attracted by the


proposal that we should create a new executive role for judges—or at least, an executive role to be discharged in the name of a judge. It seems to me that either there is an executive procedure or there is a judicial procedure. The hybrid proposal made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann might satisfy certain civilian lawyers on the continent, but it would not alter one whit the reality of what happens.
The practical objections that have been raised are profound and important. Having heard the views of those charged with the ultimate responsibility, not least those of the Foreign Secretary, whom I believe gave the matter considerable attention, I believe that the Government have taken the correct course.
I hope that it will not be necessary for us to continue with the provisions much longer, but that must depend on the success of the war against terrorism. I feel fortified in holding that view by the Brannigan and McBride case, which the hon. Member for Upper Bann mentioned. That case makes it plain that the European Court of Human Rights has understood and accepted the case for derogation, and considers that our action is entirely in line with the European convention.
It is extremely unfortunate that—to use the words of the court—there is a
public emergency threatening the life of the nation".
However, in the year of the Bishopsgate bomb in the heart of the City and many other appalling episodes, not least the Warrington killing, it is hard to quarrel with the view expressed by the court. So, with great regret, I see no option but to accept that the powers to extend detention for five days beyond d the original 48 hours must be continued.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield rested part of his case for review on the exclusion orders, but I have discussed the practical effects with senior security officers in this country and I have been wholly persuaded by what they said about the practical necessity of retaining exclusion orders.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann spoke about detailed surveillance as a possible alternative to exclusion orders, but it appears to me that detailed surveillance is what exclusion orders may make possible, certainly in the Province. I doubt whether without exclusion orders detailed surveillance in Great Britain would be possible —whether it would be within the capacity of our security services to carry out effective surveillance of all the people currently subject to exclusion orders.
I hope that we shall be able to return to a consensual position on this matter as soon as may be. I hope that the Labour party will reconsider its position; it is only right that it should do so. The House and the country would be reassured if that party could accept that, notwithstanding the peculiarity and exceptional nature of the measures, it is necessary to give them our endorsement for another year —another year in which great political developments may alter the face of terrorism in our country.

Lady Olga Maitland: Listening to the debate, I feel that we should spare a thought for the families of the victims—the widows, the mothers and the children—who have had to listen to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) seemingly putting the terrorist before the civil liberties of their loved ones. [Interruption. ] It is all very well for Opposition Members to say, "For God's sake," but all I can say to them is: think of those whose lives we are still trying to save and of those who have already lost their lives.
I do not believe that in, his heart of hearts, the hon. Member for Sedgefield really wants to stop terrorism. If he really meant what he says, he would pull out all the stops and close all the loopholes to prevent terrorists from crossing the country to carry out their evil deeds. He gave us a series of crocodile tears.
I shiver slightly to think that the Labour party really imagines that it could one day be a party of government. Could it really be so irresponsible as to defy the advice of the police and the security forces and open the floodgates to seriously active terrorists? That is the body of people we are really discussing. The fact that the Labour party is carrying out that policy to satisfy its own extreme elements is sickening and appalling.
As John Rowe pointed out in his independent report on the PTA, the whole point of the prevention of terrorism Act is to prevent an attack before it happens. I find it spurious that we should be faced with a smokescreen dismissing that respected report, as if we could string out events and find another report better tailored to the interests of the Opposition. Mr. Rowe emphasised how important it was to deter terrorists:
to make it more difficult for them to put their plans into action".
He added that resulting intelligence had enabled the security forces to discover a bomb factory, and so to prevent bombing incidents.
The protection of law-abiding citizens should be put before arguments about the civil liberties of terrorists. What about the civil liberties of the victims? I have in my pocket something that I choose to keep with me all the time —a piece of shrapnel that I picked up in a Dungannon housing estate that had been blasted by an IRA mortar attack. What could be more significant and memorable than the sharpness of that nasty little item?
We need to remember the catalogue of incidents. I am grateful that the Home Secretary reminded us clearly of all the events in the past year. On the mainland of Great Britain alone three people have been killed and 124 injured. The police in Great Britain alone—this takes no account of incidents in Northern Ireland—engaged in anti-terrorist operations and recovered 2.5 tonnes of explosives and 400 weapons. We must think of the catalogue of disaster and tragedy that could have followed if the police had not been able to uncover those items and if they had been inhibited by the lack of a prevention of terrorism Act.
If the Labour party were serious about being tough on crime, it would stop whingeing and twisting to please its own side. Turning internal exile and exclusion orders for terrorists into injury to a person's liberty completely misses the point.
Mr. Rowe also said:
There are strong arguments in favour of retaining the exclusion order. Terrorist activity continues with as much ferocity as ever.
As he points out, a significant part of the Provisional IRA campaign takes place in Great Britain, and acts of terrorism perpetrated in Great Britain are regarded by the IRA as highly important. An exclusion order made against a terrorist who has expertise and experience makes it more difficult for the PIRA to use that man or woman over here.
Arguments in favour of civil rights and the liberty of the citizen must be balanced by the threat of terrorism, which is as great as ever. There is a high risk of death or injury from these people, and it is our duty to save lives whenever we can.
We should show our gratitude to the security forces —to the Army, the Metropolitan police, to special branch and to the national joint unit based in New Scotland Yard. We should be especially grateful to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which has to bear the brunt of this work. Indeed, I have seen the great dedication with which its members carry it out. I have seen the attention to detail given by the security forces: they check, check and check again. They maintain an enduring vigilance.
I have visited Castlereagh police station and discussed the work of the police officers who deal with terrorist suspects. I endorse the remarks in this respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who referred to page 14 of the report, on the subject of closed circuit television monitoring of interviews. It would be well nigh impossible to record those interrogations, because that would seriously inhibit terrorists who might otherwise provide vital information.
In the fight against terrorism we depend on intelligence; very largely, that intelligence comes from the people who are interviewed.

Mr. Mallon: I note the hon. Lady's point. Is she saying that it is legitimate to subject someone to interrogation as a means of obtaining intelligence about someone else?

Lady Olga Maitland: It is. We should follow up every line of interrogation in order to save lives. Not unusually, after some days of silence suspects suddenly decide to talk. What they say is often most revealing—it can save many lives—but that would never happen if the suspect felt that his colleagues might discover the fact that he had talked about their activities—if he believed that he and his family might be dead within days. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said, the lives of interrogation officers would also be seriously put at risk.
The police need skill and patience to deal with difficult suspects, who sit in silence for days on end. They sing tunes, they deliberately perform degrading acts in front of the interviewing officers as a way of insulting them and the law, yet we expect the highest professionalism from the RUC as its members continue to perform their difficult tasks.
I have nothing but praise for the security forces, who do so much at such great personal risk to save so many lives. I deplore the attitude of anyone who chooses to vote against renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act. Doing that, I fear, could send the wrong message to Sinn Fein and the IRA, whose members might believe that they could string us along again and attempt all sorts of devious machinations. They would hope that by continuing in that vein they might be given succour by the Labour party if that dreadful day ever came to pass when it became the party of government. I believe that this debate will ensure that the public will vote again and again for a party with a responsible attitude to terrorism.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I am one of those whose attitude, by definition, will be deplored by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), because I am going to vote against renewal of the Act, just as I have always done.
I detected a remarkable contradiction in a point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and by two subsequent speakers. Enthusiastically they support this prevention of terrorism legislation, which has been on the statute book for 20 years; at the same time, they question the efficacy and wisdom of the joint declaration, which has been in existence for two and a half months. That is to ignore the central point about the joint declaration, which is that it was not written for Sinn Fein or the IRA, or for the loyalist paramilitary groupings. It was written for all the people on the island of Ireland. It embodies a set of principles that form a basis on which agreement can be sought. Hon. Members who question the declaration in this contradictory fashion clearly misunderstand its purpose.
I have listened to a number of these debates over the years. Today the old allegation has been repeated again —that those who oppose the legislation are at best misguided and at worst soft on terrorism. I find that objectionable, because that line of thought sees this type of emergency legislation not for what it is but as a litmus test for sound, anti-terrorist credentials. As the Evening Standard of 10 March observed, this legislation is used as a litmus test to establish who is soft on terrorism and who has sound anti-terrorist credentials.
I will take no lessons from anyone on the subject of terrorism and violence, or my opposition to them. I have lived in the midst of terrorism all my life, and I spent 25 years working in politics against those involved in violence —not from the cosiness of a television studio or a forum such as this House but on the streets and in the towns. I know what it is to have my name and face plastered on walls and to be described as an informer and a traitor—as someone worthy of execution. That is why I need no lectures about being strongly against terrorism. Nor do I need lectures on the rights of Members of this House to question any legislation.
I believe that this legislation must be questioned, first, because in three fundamental respects it deviates from normal law. It is therefore right and essential to criticise it. It has been effectively criticised by many speakers, not least the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) today. Such deviations from the norm must certainly be subjected to questioning.
The legislation should also be questioned on the ground that it involves a derogation from the European convention on human rights, in respect of the seven-day detention period—a provision supposed to be implemented only in time of war or other emergency. That in itself is reason enough to question the Act, and I intend to do just that.
I also question the Act because ours is the only country in Europe that allows for internal exile—a curious way for the Conservative and Unionist party to express its profound commitment to the Union. What does that tell us about attitudes to nationalists and unionists in Northern Ireland, and about attitudes to unionism? The Conservatives' point of view seems to be, "We will have your votes, thank you, when we need them, but you can have the terrorists and all that that entails." It is an affront to all the people of the north of Ireland that this type of internal exile should be permitted. Irrespective of its merits or otherwise in legal terms, the sheer political implications to which it gives rise demand that we question it.
The third reason is that its application and implementation has created a context within which appalling miscarriages of justice can take place, and have taken place. We should not overlook the context created by


emergency legislation. Since the implementation of the prevention of terrorism Act 20 years ago, at least 15 cases brought under its terms have been deemed appalling miscarriages of justice—not by me, or by nationalist opinion, but by the highest courts in this land. That must give rise to disquiet within every hon. Member who values the highest standards and integrity of the judicial and legal process.
I believe that the Act does something else. There has been an abject failure to bring to justice those responsible for the miscarriages of justice, because the attitude of mind that we have heard from the Floor of the House today does not allow those responsible to face and be subject to justice themselves.
I will give examples. In the Birmingham case, the powers given to the police under the legislation in effect corrupted the people who were charged with upholding the law. Hon. Members should not take my word for it—that has been established beyond doubt in terms of the decisions made within their own organisation. The same applies in the Guildford case. The most appalling part of it all in terms of the miscarriages of justice is the consequent impossibility of charging and convicting those who did carry out those crimes.
The imperative within the legislation and its urgency means that, in effect, the people who carried out the Birmingham and Guildford bombings and the other murders in the Judith Ward case are walking scot free. That is not as a result of the legislation, but because of the context in which the legislation placed the police and the process of justice, and the determination to get results.

Mr. Howard: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely and with great interest. I am sure that he would not want to give a misleading impression. Will he accept that the powers which we are discussing were not used in either the Birmingham or the Guildford case?

Mr. Mallon: I accept that readily, but I am talking about the context which it creates where there is an imperative on the police to get results. That, and the pressure of public opinion, was responsible for a lot of the reprehensible action. We must guard against that in all types of emergency legislation.
Perhaps one of the most pertinent insights into the retention of this legislation in its present form was given by the then Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan, in 1983. He gave two reasons for the retention of the powers of detention. The powers acted
first, as a deterrent to persons other than the people who have been detained".
The implication of that, and the enormity of that implication, is that detaining people and taking away their freedom without any judicial input for up to seven days should be a legitimate means of deterring other people from crime. The fact that that was said by the then Home Secretary seems to be an appalling statement for someone who was in charge of the implementation of the highest standards of law.
The second reason which Sir Leon Brittan gave, and which was reiterated by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, was that it
enabled information to be obtained that was of direct value in the battle against terrorism, even though it did not lead to action against the people concerned."—[Official Report, 24 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 55–56.]
Is it right to detain innocent people for the purpose of obtaining information from them?
The enormity of that can be seen in the figures for the north of Ireland. In 1993, 1,641 people were detained, and 379 people were charged. That means that 1,262 people were not charged and were released in the terms of the law of this country that they were innocent until proven guilty. I wonder how many of those 1,262 people were being used as a trawl for information and how many were being questioned while detained on reasonable suspicion that they may have been involved in and concerned with terrorist activity. That is the corrosive effect that such legislation can have on those who are charged with implementing and upholding the law.
Exclusion orders are perhaps the most odious powers accorded to the Home Secretary through the Act. Great play has been made of the fact that the number of exclusion orders currently in force is the lowest at the end of any year since 1975. Let me say that 71 exclusion orders is 71 too many.
Leaving aside the dubious legal ethics of such orders, do the Government believe that by imposing an exclusion order they are solving the problem? At most, they are shifting the problem to Northern Ireland, where they seem content to let it fester. In any event, where is the redress of an innocent person who is condemned to exclusion on the say-so of the Home Secretary? Where is the fundamental right of a person to present his or her side of the story? The Home Secretary does not need a burden of proof, and he does not even have to state his reason for excluding someone. There is no possibility that a person excluded can realistically challenge his exclusion. If ever there was a patent need for a review of this legislation, that surely must be it.
I have one simple question for all hon. Members: by and large, who are the people who are subject to this legislation in Britain? Lorry drivers, ordinary people going on their holidays, young people who just happen to wear jeans and have long hair and people going about their business normally, as any person would or should. Such people make up the vast majority of those who are detained for short periods under this legislation. They have the stigma of detention on them when they return home, and we know what that can mean in Northern Ireland terms.
Let me refer to the extension of detention. The power to extend a person's detention under the Act is one which I think is manifestly exercised in a rather automatic way by the Home Secretary. It causes traumatic experiences for the detainee, who may not have had an opportunity to speak to anyone other than the police for 48 hours, not to mention a lawyer.
In 1993, not a single application for extension submitted by the police in Britain to the Home Secretary was refused. There were 29 in all, and that is more than double the number in 1992. That strongly suggests the need at minimum for a more rigorous examination of the applications for extension. The review of Mr. Rowe states that, when the Royal Ulster Constabulary apply to the Northern Ireland Office for an extension of detention, the usual explanation offered for the request is "reliable intelligence".
The fact that 77 per cent. of detentions in Northern Ireland do not lead to criminal charges must cast some doubt on the "reliable intelligence" which is offered by the RUC. Although the reviewer of the Act states that he could find no correlation between the length of time specified in the request for extension or detention and the time needed, he explains that by referring to the uncertainty of forensic


evidence. However, elsewhere in the review is the assertion that the police have built up considerable expertise in that very area. Which are we to believe?
I suggest that applications to extend a person's detention—as with the reviews of exclusion orders—are akin to a cosmetic exercise which has been designed to paper over the gross abuses of personal freedom which are allowed by the Act.
I shall not go into detail on the right to a solicitor, but I remind the Home Secretary of one case. It is the case of a constituent of mine, a middle-aged man called Patrick Murphy, coming up to Christmas in 1992. He was an alcoholic. He did not remember where he was. He was charged on the say-so of a cab driver. He was identified and charged with bombings in London. If it had not been for the generosity of spirit of people in the Alcoholics Anonymous organisation, who went to the police after he had been charged and said that he was at a meeting that they held, his charge would have proceeded and he would have been in no position whatever to make a defence. That is another example of how this type of legislation can go so badly wrong.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he said that the procedures were a cosmetic exercise for covering up gross abuses of personal liberty. Will he accept from me that officials—I speak of the Northern Ireland jurisdiction—first subject applications to very careful scrutiny before they are referred to the Secretary of State or, in his absence, another Minister, and that it is certainly the practice to cut down on applications or even to refuse them completely? I do not have the statistics in my head, but I am well familiar with cases in which I have refused the full amount that has been requested. So to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman has done, that the procedure is a cosmetic exercise does great injustice to officials—I leave aside any concern for Ministers.

Mr. Mallon: I take the point that the Secretary of State makes. I could have put my point better. I should like to withdraw the word "cosmetic". I do that with the same grace as the Secretary of State has made the point to me. May I ask him to read into the record the number of times that he has refused requests for an extension on grounds which were sustainable by him? That is the point that I am trying to get at. I regret that I have used words in a way which would cast aspersions on both the Secretary of State and the officials involved. I adjust the wording accordingly. Nevertheless, I should like to see the figures.
The rate of charging worries me greatly. Yet another element of the Act which causes concern not only to people in Northern Ireland but to members of the legal profession is the very low rate of charging. That may seem strange coming from someone who argues from the point of view from which I argue. Of the 145 people detained in Britain in 1993, only 30, or less than a quarter, were subsequently charged. Let us remember that those 145 had been detained, so that the police had ample time and opportunity to question them at length.
When one considers that a total of 309 people were examined for more than one hour under the Act, one gets a truer picture of how low the charging rate is. Only 30 out

of the combined total of 354 means that fewer than 10 per cent. of those whom the police wanted to question were subsequently charged. I am trying to see what is the problem. Are detentions being made on a basis for which there is no reasonable suspicion that would lead to charges?

Mr. Stephen Day: Neither I nor, I am sure, anyone in the House doubts the hon. Gentleman's courage in facing terrorists and all their works. However, he gives the impression that his main concern is civil liberties. As one who has been on the receiving end of an IRA bomb and has been hospitalised as a result, as was my wife, I perceive the greatest threat to civil liberties to be terrorism itself. I feel that the hon. Gentleman is getting the balance wrong. I accuse him of no more than that. It is an important point that I wish he would take on board.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making it. It is a valid point. However, the real bulwark against terrorism and the means of defeating terrorism is not legislation such as this but the attitude that we can foster within the entire community. Of course I am concerned about civil liberties. They are the very basis of our society and the basis of that within our society which the IRA, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force seek to undermine. We should not facilitate them in that.
The position in Northern Ireland in 1993 was even more worrying in terms of charging. Out of a total of 1,641 people detained, 379 were charged. The significant point is that 445 people had their detention extended. I shall leave that question with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know that he will want to respond to it.
I pose the question whether the legislation, as it exists, can be properly accommodated within a civilised society without doing irreparable damage to the process of law, to the police and to those who are charged with enforcing the law. There must surely be a question over that. Will damage be done to the process of justice? Its highest standards and integrity have in the past been eroded by gross miscarriages of justice. Will it do damage to the body politic? Will it erode the proper conviction that the law, the courts, the police and legislators are there to protect people's rights, not diminish them; to defend the innocent, not to make him or her a potential subject of detention for the purpose of intelligence gathering? Lastly, will it do damage to society as a whole and the highest standards of civil liberties which are part and parcel of any decent society?

Mr. Graham Riddick: The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) expressed some indignation that his meetings with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary had been leaked. I do not condone the leaking of the details of that meeting, but I find it somewhat ironic and not a little amusing that the Labour party is now suffering some embarrassment as a result of those leaks. We have seen the Labour party only too happy to take advantage of other leaks and play party politics with them. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is a pastmaster at using leaks from Government Departments to his party political advantage.
The history of the debate is clear enough. The Labour Government in 1974 introduced the prevention of terrorism Act. That followed some shocking a trocities, not


least the Birmingham and Guildford pub bombings. The Act was supported by the Conservative Opposition. In 1976, the Conservative party's support was required by the then Labour Government because 35 Labour Members of Parliament voted against the renewal of the PTA. That was a foretaste of things to come.
Until 1980 the Labour party supported the annual renewal. That was important because it is necessary to have a united, all-party response to terrorism. So what changed thereafter? Sadly, the threat posed by the terrorists did not recede. What changed was the political outlook of the Labour party. As we all know, it was hijacked by the left wing. Today, 14 years later, there is a sufficient number of left-wing Labour Members of Parliament who believe in Irish republicanism and who have enough power within the Labour party to stop the so-called modernisers, of whom the hon. Member for Sedgefield is a prime example, from swinging today's Labour party behind support for the renewal of PTA.
There is a clear message here for the electorate. While the left wing of the Labour party may be keeping its head down, it is clearly still a force to be reckoned with in the Labour party. Last year we had the shocking spectacle of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) travelling to the United States of America, of his own volition, to give evidence on behalf of a convicted terrorist and against the British Government, who sought that terrorist's extradition to the United Kingdom. That was disgraceful behaviour. It sent completely the wrong message to the terrorists and to many Irish Americans who, sadly, do not understand the position in Northern Ireland and believe that there is majority support there for the republican movement. The hon. Member for Brent, East contributed to that lack of understanding in America.
The truth is that the prevention of terrorism Act plays a most important role in the battle against terrorism. It is both vital and necessary, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has said. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has already given us some figures of the number of people who were detained under the Act in Northern Ireland last year: 450 were detained for longer than 48 hours, of whom 114 were later charged with serious offences. In Great Britain 13 people were given long custodial sentences for serious terrorist offences, following detention under the Act.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield mentioned the concern expressed by the Ulster Unionists about exclusion orders. He also referred to the concern expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) about the lack of a judicial element in the authorisation of detention orders. Despite their concerns, however, they vote for the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and a failure to do so would send the wrong message.
Labour's failure to vote for renewal of the Act sends the wrong message. I will not claim that Labour is soft on terrorism, but if its members vote against the Act, on what I must say, having listened to the hon. Member for Sedgefield, are not very convincing grounds, it will suggest to the terrorists a certain lack of determination, will and unity on the part of the whole political establishment in the fight against terrorism.
I hope that the hon. Member will throw off the shackles of his own republican-leaning left wing and vote with us when we come to renew the Act this time next year. In the meantime, however, I am only too happy to vote for the renewal of the Act this evening.

Mr. Roger Stott: Because of the shortage of time, and not because I want to be discourteous to the hon. Members who have already spoken, I hope that they will forgive me if I do not directly refer to their contributions, apart from the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) which I thought was pathetic and shoddy. But never mind, perhaps it is par for the course on this subject.
Very few people listening to the Home Secretary in the House today were present when the Labour Government introduced the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act in 1974 in response to the bombings in Birmingham and Guildford. In the aftermath of those terrible atrocities and in response to justifiable public outrage, we rushed this emergency legislation through the House—I think it took 36 hours non-stop. At the time, practically every member of the Labour party, myself included, believed that the Act was a necessary but temporary measure. I voted for it and continued to do so.
The prevention of terrorism Act, however, has now been in existence for 20 years and self-evidently can no longer be called temporary. Provisions that in 1974 were felt to be justified as emergency, short-term measures cannot be justified as permanent features of a parliamentary democracy. I speak, in particular, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has done, of exclusion orders and of seven-day detention by executive order. Those powers threaten the very basis of a free and democratic society and this can only strengthen the paramilitaries.
We have opposed and continue to oppose the Act as presently constructed not only because of its corrosive effect on civil liberties but because it simply has not worked. After 20 years of the Act, Northern Ireland is internally the most politically violent unit in the European Union. The draconian powers that it contains have not prevented terrorism; if anything, they have created a vicious cycle of paramilitary violence and state repression which have become mutually reinforcing. That can only undermine the rule of law and the prospects for a political settlement in Northern Ireland.
It is for those reasons that the Labour party withdrew its support for the Act in 1983 and it is for those reasons that the Labour team thereafter has consistently articulated its objections to the use of seven-day detention without judicial review and the use of exclusion orders. It is a pity that it now becomes clear that the Government have rejected the offer by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield of bipartisanship on this important issue. The Government's decision to continue seven-day detention without judicial review means that Britain will have to derogate from its international obligations, which damages our reputation for integrity and the rule of law.
In the holding centres, detainees can be questioned without knowing what crime they are accused of and without the right to a solicitor for two days. To make matters worse, they are also denied the safeguard of audio-taping of interviews. When the Home Secretary replies to the debate, I should be grateful if he would inform the House if the taping experiment in England will cease at the end of 1994. If so, will he confirm that the experiment will be properly and independently evaluated? Now that the Royal Ulster Constabulary have had time to adjust to taping under the Police and Criminal Evidence


Act 1984, there can be no excuse for further delay in the introduction of taping for suspects detained under emergency legislation.
Several hon. Members mentioned Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's report. It is a pity that it is not before us today.
I am conscious of the shortage of time, but there is one issue that I wish to draw to the attention of the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield and other hon. Members have spoken about the appalling consequences of exclusion orders. The House may recall that last year a young man by the name of John Matthews was returning from London to his home in Derry when he was arrested by security forces at Heathrow. John Matthews is a young graduate who could not find work in Northern Ireland; he came over to this country to live with his aunt and became a hospital porter. He was arrested under the prevention of terrorism Act and was held in police custody for seven days.
John Matthews was brought before a magistrate and charged with causing an explosion in the City of London that was likely to endanger life. He was accused of hijacking a taxi in north London and ordering the driver to take a bomb to Downing street. The taxi was abandoned in Holborn where it exploded without causing injury. John Matthews was then sent to Belmarsh prison as a category A remand prisoner and he remained there for 10 weeks.
I became involved in his case when members of Mr. Matthews' family came to see me. After a long and detailed discussion, they convinced me that their son had never been involved in IRA terrorism and was not a member of any terrorist organisation. I decided to go and see him in Belmarsh prison. I arrived with his uncle, to be informed by the prison authorities that he was about to be released and would shortly appear in the magistrates court.
On hearing this, his uncle and I went to the court, where we were joined by John Matthews's mother and father. When he was brought before the stipendiary magistrate —by coincidence, it was the same magistrate who had sent him to Belmarsh originally—the solicitor representing the Crown Prosecution Service announced that all charges were being withdrawn since, having reviewed the evidence available, it could not offer a realistic prospect of a conviction.
At that point the magistrate cross-examined the prosecuting solicitor, pointing out that, at the previous hearing, it had been indicated to him that the prosecution had identity and forensic evidence. It now appeared that there was no evidence whatever against John Matthews. The stipendiary magistrate then turned to John Matthews, in my hearing and in that of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), and told John that he had received references of the utmost distinction about him and that he could leave the court without a stain on his character. Ten minutes later, he was rearrested and placed in a police cell and shortly afterwards the Home Secretary—the right hon. and learned Gentleman sitting across from me now—signed an exclusion order on him. It was made almost immediately after he had left the court a free man.
I have subsequently seen John Matthews in his home city of Derry. He is worried that the exclusion order placed on him and the subsequent comments by the Home Secretary could make him a target for loyalist paramilitaries. He has absolutely no chance of finding a job

and his movements are restricted to Northern Ireland. John Matthews and his lawyers have not been, and will not be, told the reason why the Home Secretary signed the exclusion order.
John Matthews's case is the most disgraceful example of the effect of the power invested in the Home Secretary. If it was thought that evidence could be prejudicial on national security grounds, why was not evidence brought forward and submitted to a judge in camera? If the Home Secretary had evidence against John Matthews, why did not the security services and the Home Secretary produce it in a court of law, which was never done?
Individuals subjected to exclusion orders have not been found guilty of any specific offence in a court of law. They have not even had the opportunity to hear the charges against them. By the end of 1993, 71 people remained the subject of exclusion orders, none of whom had the right to be told why they faced internal exile. The only examples of similar powers in 20th century Europe were those exercised by those notable democrats, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini and General Franco—[Interruption.] They were the only such examples in contemporary 20th century history that I could find of such powers being used to place people in internal exile.
I profoundly regret the fact that the Government, particularly the Home Secretary, appear unable to accept the offer made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield—especially as the Ulster Unionist party and my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) of the Social Democratic and Labour party have said that both those parties would be willing to participate in a review. Even at this eleventh hour, I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider. If he does not, for the reasons so eloquently given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, we shall not vote to renew the order tonight.

Mr. Howard: I cannot remember a debate in the House in which there has been such a marked contrast between the tone and approach of the Opposition spokesman who opened the debate and that of the Opposition spokesman who wound up the debate.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was at pains to suggest that all he wanted was a review. He seemed to be saying, "Let us have a review and consider whether there is a different way of achieving the objectives that have been sustained by the exclusion order and the extension of detention." The implication of what the hon. Gentleman was saying—he did not go so far as to say it —was, "If we can be persuaded that there is no other way of achieving those objectives, perhaps we might think again."
From the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) we heard —to use his own words—a sustained, angry denunciation of the powers contained in the Act in terms that made it absolutely clear that he would not be persuaded by a review. He does not want the powers at any price. That dichotomy lies at the heart of the Opposition's attitude to such matters—and has done so from the word go.

Mr. Blair: I shall repeat the offer to the Home Secretary so that there is no doubt about it. It is particularly important to try to unite the House tonight. We have asked for an independent full judicial review—we can discuss the circumstances of it—of those two aspects of the legislation. We wish the House to unite tonight. That has


been agreed by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), on behalf of the Ulster Unionists and by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on behalf of the SDLP. I make the Home Secretary that offer tonight with sincerity and ask him to respond in the same way.

Mr. Howard: I was merely describing the contrast in the approach taken by the hon. Member for Sedgefield and that taken by the hon. Member for Wigan. I shall discuss the review in a moment.
It has been a heated debate, touching on fundamental issues. The consequences of our decisions are serious and it is not surprising that passions should run deep. A case can be made for putting civil liberties first. That case was put by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. My hon. Friends and I reject it for precisely the reasons given by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—I quoted the language that he used in my opening speech—in the debates in the House in 1974. One can make a case—as did the hon. Member for Upper Bann —for querying some of the powers and reconsidering them while voting to support the powers in the order because they are necessary in the fight against terrorism.
I do not believe that one can make the sort of arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Sedgefield in his opening speech and then lead one's party in the Lobby against the renewal of the order. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) said—he speaks with the benefit of grew. experience in such matters—we have difficult decisions before us. But government is about difficult decisions. If we were not prepared to face up to difficult decisions, we would face accusations of dereliction of duty—the accusation that I level against the Labour party this evening.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield repeated his request for an independent review. We have had an annual independent review, which is not confined to the way in which the Act works. It is open to the person conducting the review to consider representations on the extent of the powers. Some of Mr. Rowe's predecessors have received representations to that effect, considered them and included them in their report.
When I announced in a parliamentary answer in December the appointment of Mr. Rowe, I invited representations to be made to him. It was open to the hon. Member for Sedgefield and the Labour party that he represents to make representations to Mr. Rowe at that time in the context of the review that he was undertaking so that they could be given full and proper consideration. The hon. Gentleman should have suggested a review and offered his specific proposals then if he intended them to be taken seriously. The hon. Gentleman failed totally to take advantage of that opportunity. At the appropriate time, the Labour party made no approaches to Mr. Rowe, who was in charge of that review. That was what it should have done.

Mr. Blair: As has been said by other hon. Members, Mr. Rowe is not the person to conduct such a review. If the Home Secretary is interested in achieving agreement on the matter—I cannot see what possible objection there can be —he should agree to the appointment of a senior, respected figure to undertake a review of the specific powers. It would make sense to appoint a judge. Such a review is long

overdue and we could then come to an agreement. I cannot for the life of me see what is wrong with such an arrangement.

Mr. Howard: We have had a review of which the hon. Gentleman could have taken advantage, but he conspicuously failed to do so. The suggestion of a review is yet another of the smokescreens for which the hon. Gentleman is becoming famous.
We know the points that are at issue between the parties. There is no mystery about them; they are crystal clear. We know that the Labour party objects to the exclusion order. I have sought to explain to the House today why, in practice, there is no alternative to the exclusion order if we are to achieve the benefits in the fight against terrorism about which the Association of Chief Police Officers has told us.
We also know the issues between us on the subject of the extension of the detention order. I say to the hon. Members for Sedgefield and for Upper Bann that I do not think that there is any mileage in the suggestion of a sort of halfway house between judicial consideration of the matters and allowing the decision-taking process to rest in the hands of the Minister. That option was considered in the Hurd-Waddington review, to which reference has been made, but it was found not to be satisfactory.
In addition, it is extremely unlikely that such a course would find favour with the European Court of Human Rights. The hon. Gentleman placed great emphasis on that aspect of the matter. The European Court of Human Rights would look not at the label attached to the person carrying out the function but at the nature of the function. As, because of its nature, the evidence cannot be made available to the defendant—the defendant cannot be shown the intelligence material that is being relied on—it follows inevitably that the function is not a judicial one and that the benefit, in terms of the European Court of Human Rights, to which the hon. Gentleman referred would not be available.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) asked about detention extension applications turned down by my right hon. Friends and myself. I confirm that it is unusual for applications to be refused, but there are examples of refusal. In the United Kingdom there have been just two such occasions in the past two years. There have been other occasions when a period of detention shorter than that sought by the police was authorised. But, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I counsel the hon. Gentleman against coming to a wrong conclusion about the very great care with which both officials and my right hon. Friends and I consider these applications. After 20 years of exercising these powers, the police, in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland, are well aware of the clear case that they are expected to make out under one of the 14 separate criteria that were codified by Lord Colville in his 1987 report.
I have a sad announcement to make to the House before we conclude this debate. It appears that in the past hour five mortars were fired from the back of a vehicle towards Heathrow airport. The House will be relieved to learn that, from initial reports, it appears that there are no casualties or serious damage. I do not know whether that incident is supposed to send some signal to the House as we conclude our debate on these matters. If it is, there is only one conclusion that the House can responsibly reach. We know that the Association of Chief Police Officers unequivocally


considers this legislation in its present form to be essential in the fight against terrorism. Over the past few days and during the course of the debate we have had many appeals for unity across the House. There could be no more appropriate moment for displaying unity than in the aftermath of the attack that I have just announced.
I appeal to the Labour party to listen not to me but to the Association of Chief Police Officers and to go into the Aye Lobby in support of the order so that the police may continue to have available to them powers that they consider to be essential. This is the Labour party's opportunity to display unity and to show those who are responsible for the mortar attack that the House of Commons is united and is determined to face them down and to make available to the police the powers that they need to fight terrorism. It is not too late for the Opposition to respond to this appeal. Will they join us in the Aye Lobby in support of these powers? I commend the Order to the House.

Question put:—

The House proceeded to a Division:—

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I left my office in No. 7 Millbank immediately the bell went. I walked briskly all the way here but was unable to get through the door by a fraction of a second. I believe that we now do not have enough a time for Members to reach the Chamber walking at a legitimate pace.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I hear the hon. Lady. I took the normal time. The hon. Lady will have read today's Order Paper and she will have recognised that a Division was expected three hours after the commencement of the proceedings. She is an assiduous Member. She would doubtless have worked out when the debate started and when it was going to finish, and I suggest that in future she prepares herself just a few minutes beforehand.

Mrs. Gorman: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There can be nothing further to that point of order at this point of time.

Mrs. Gorman: (seated and covered): With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I looked at the monitor in my room when the Division bell rang and it showed the time at 6.53 pm—

The House having divided: Ayes 328, Noes 242.

Division No. 157]
[6.50 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Aitken, Jonathan
Baldry, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bates, Michael


Alton, David
Batiste, Spencer


Amess, David
Beggs, Roy


Arbuthnot, James
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Aspinwall, Jack
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Atkins, Robert
Booth, Hartley


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia





Bowden, Andrew
Gorst, John


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bright, Graham
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hague, William


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nicholas
Hanley, Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hannam, Sir John


Butler, Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Harvey, Nick


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Nick


Carrington, Matthew
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Chapman, Sydney
Heald, Oliver


Churchill, Mr
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clappison, James
Hendry, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coe, Sebastian
Horam, John


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cormack, Patrick
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jack, Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jenkin, Bernard


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dover, Den
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Duncan, Alan
Key, Robert


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dunn, Bob
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkwood, Archy


Eggar, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evennett, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Faber, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fabricant, Michael
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Legg, Barry


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Leigh, Edward


Fishburn, Dudley
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forman, Nigel
Lidington, David


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Lightbown, David


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lord, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Luff, Peter


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fry, Sir Peter
Lynne, Ms Liz


Gale, Roger
McCrea, Rev William


Gallie, Phil
MacKay, Andrew


Gardiner, Sir George
Maclean, David


Garnier, Edward
Maclennan, Robert


Gill, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gillan, Cheryl
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Madel, Sir David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maginnis, Ken






Maitland, Lady Olga
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Major, Rt Hon John
Soames, Nicholas


Malone, Gerald
Speed, Sir Keith


Mans, Keith
Spencer, Sir Derek


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Marlow, Tony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spink, Dr Robert


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Spring, Richard


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sproat, Iain


Mates, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Merchant, Piers
Stephen, Michael


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Stern, Michael


Mills, Iain
Stewart, Allan


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Streeter, Gary


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Sumberg, David


Moate, Sir Roger
Sweeney, Walter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Sykes, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Needham, Richard
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Thomason, Roy


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Norris, Steve
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


O'Neill, Martin
Thurnham, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th


Ottaway, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Page, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Paice, James
Trend, Michael


Patnick, Irvine
Trimble, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Trotter, Neville


Pawsey, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tyler, Paul


Porter, David (Waveney)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rathbone, Tim
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Rendel, David
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Richards, Rod
Wallace, James


Riddick, Graham
Waller, Gary


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Ward, John


Robathan, Andrew
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Waterson, Nigel


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Watts, John


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Wells, Bowen


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Whitney, Ray


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Whittingdale, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Widdecombe, Ann


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sackville, Tom
Wilkinson, John


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Willetts, David


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shersby, Michael



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Michael Brown.


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Armstrong, Hilary


Adams, Mrs Irene
Austin-Walker, John


Ainger, Nick
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Barnes, Harry


Allen, Graham
Barron, Kevin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Battle, John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bayley, Hugh





Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Gordon, Mildred


Bell, Stuart
Gould, Bryan


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Graham, Thomas


Bennett, Andrew F.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Benton, Joe
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Grocott, Bruce


Betts, Clive
Gunnell, John


Blair, Tony
Hain, Peter


Blunkett, David
Hall, Mike


Boateng, Paul
Hanson, David


Boyes, Roland
Hardy, Peter


Bradley, Keith
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Henderson, Doug


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Heppell, John


Burden, Richard
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Byers, Stephen
Hinchliffe, David


Caborn, Richard
Home Robertson, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Canavan, Dennis
Hoyle, Doug


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hutton, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Ingram, Adam


Clelland, David
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Coffey, Ann
Jamieson, David


Cohen, Harry
Janner, Greville


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Corbett, Robin
Jowell, Tessa


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corston, Ms Jean
Keen, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cox, Tom
Khabra, Piara S.


Cryer, Bob
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lewis, Terry


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Litherland, Robert


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Livingstone, Ken


Dalyell, Tam
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Darling, Alistair
Loyden, Eddie


Davidson, Ian
McAllion, John


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Ian


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
McFall, John


Denham, John
McGrady, Eddie


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dobson, Frank
McLeish, Henry


Donohoe, Brian H.
McMaster, Gordon


Dowd, Jim
McNamara, Kevin


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McWilliam, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
Madden, Max


Eastham, Ken
Mahon, Alice


Enright, Derek
Mallon, Seamus


Etherington, Bill
Mandelson, Peter


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marek, Dr John


Fatchett, Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Fisher, Mark
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Flynn, Paul
Martlew, Eric


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Maxton, John


Foulkes, George
Meacher, Michael


Fraser, John
Michael, Alun


Fyfe, Maria
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Galbraith, Sam
Milburn, Alan


Galloway, George
Miller, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Garrett, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gerrard, Neil
Morgan, Rhodri


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morley, Elliot


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Godsiff, Roger
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mowlam, Marjorie






Mudie, George
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mullin, Chris
Short, Clare


Murphy, Paul
Simpson, Alan


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Skinner, Dennis


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


O'Hara, Edward
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Olner, William
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


O'Neill, Martin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Parry, Robert
Soley, Clive


Patchett, Terry
Spearing, Nigel


Pickthall, Colin
Spellar, John


Pike, Peter L.
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Pope, Greg
Steinberg, Gerry


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Stevenson, George


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Stott, Roger


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Prescott, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Primarolo, Dawn
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Dennis


Quin, Ms Joyce
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Radice, Giles
Walley, Joan


Randall, Stuart
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Raynsford, Nick
Wareing, Robert N


Redmond, Martin
Watson, Mike


Reid, Dr John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wilson, Brian


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Winnick, David


Rogers, Allan
Worthington, Tony


Rooker, Jeff
Wray, Jimmy


Rooney, Terry
Wright, Dr Tony


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rowlands, Ted



Ruddock, Joan
Tellers for the Noes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. John Cummings.


Sheerman, Barry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.

Departmental Select Committees

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 130 (Select Committees related to government departments) be amended, by leaving out lines 5 to 8, and, in the Table, after the entry relating to National Heritage, by inserting the words—

"9A Northern Northern Ireland Affairs
Northern Ireland Office; administration and Ireland Affairs expenditure of the Crown Solicitor's Office (but excluding individual cases and advice given by the Crown Solicitor); and other matters within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (but excluding the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of the Direct or of Public Prosecutions, Northern Ireland and the drafting of legislation by the Office of the Legislative Counsel).
13
4"

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motion:
That Standing Order No. 99 (Northern Ireland Committee) be amended, in line 2 and in line 15, in each case after the word 'Ireland' by inserting the word 'Grand'.
Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Newton: The purpose of the first motion is to establish a Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee within the existing framework of departmentally related Select Committees, as I announced to the House on 16 December.
As the House knows, since 1980 our Select Committee system has been based on links between individual Committees and one—occasionally more than one—Government Department. As the departmental structure has changed, the Committee structure has changed to reflect it, most recently in 1992 with the setting up of new Select Committees on National Heritage and on Science and Technology.
That pattern follows the recommendations of the Procedure Committee in 1978. The Procedure Committee did not recommend a departmental Select Committee for the Northern Ireland Office, but only because of uncertainty about the future constitutional arrangements for the Province.
In the last Parliament, the Procedure Committee, then —as now, I am happy to say—under the distinguished chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P Emery), carried out a major inquiry into the working of the Select Committee system. The Procedure Committee found that it was
anomalous from a practical point of view that no separate Select Committee exists to oversee the affairs of Northern Ireland".
In principle, it supported the setting up of a separate Committee, but accepted that the time for it was not ripe —for various reasons somewhat similar to those pertaining in 1978.
The Committee did, however, devote some thought to the size and composition that such a Select Committee might have when circumstances made it appropriate to bring it into being. It recognised that it would be reasonable if not essential for the Government to have a majority on


the Committee, and that the political parties based in Northern Ireland should have reasonable representation on it. For those reasons it saw that the Select Committee would need to be somewhat larger than the other departmentally related Committees, all of which at present have 11 members.
The Committee also recognised that the Committee of Selection's formula for determining the places available to minority parties would need to be amended to take account of the special factors involved. At the end of last year, in a further report, the Committee returned to those issues, and recommended to the House that the Committee should consist of either 13 or 15 Members and that all the Northern Ireland political parties represented in the House should be represented on the Committee.
For some time, then, the question has been not whether there should be a Northern Ireland Select Committee, but when.
I told the House before Christmas that, in response to the Procedure Committee's recommendation, the Government had come to the view that the time for a Northern Ireland Select Committee had now come. That judgment was made—I accept it was an act of judgment —taking account of all the relevant political considerations in Northern Ireland. I am sure that there will be a widespread welcome in the House for a move that puts parliamentary accountability in this respect on all fours with the arrangements in relation to other Government Departments.
Let me now say a few words about the details of our proposal. The first part of the motion paves the way for more effective scrutiny of Northern Ireland matters, along the lines that I have just sketched, by ending the present arrangements for the scrutiny of Northern Ireland matters whereby agriculture in Northern Ireland is looked at by the Agriculture Committee, housing in Northern Ireland by the Environment Committee, and so on.
The second part of the motion sets up a new Select Committee. Following the model of the Scottish Affairs and Welsh Affairs Committees, we propose that it should be called the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
The new Committee ought to be able to look at the full range of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. For that reason we have included in its remit not only the Northern Ireland Office, which deals with security and constitutional and political questions. but what are described as
other matters within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland".
Under the present administrative arrangements, that formula embraces the Northern Ireland Departments, such as the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Economic Development, as they are subject to the discretion and control of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. It is clearly desirable, however, to provide for the possibility of change if agreement should be reached on different political structures.
The form of words used in the amendment to the Standing Order would ensure that, once the Secretary of State ceased to be responsible for an area of policy, it would no longer fall within the terms of reference of the Select Committee. In other words, Westminster will oversee only those things for which Whitehall is responsible. Associated public bodies in Northern Ireland are also included in the terms of reference.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland will continue to be responsible to, and to give his evidence and reports to, the Public Accounts Committee, as he does twice a year under the present arrangements?

Mr. Newton: My understanding is that that is the case.
A number of matters will be excluded from the Select Committee's remit at the outset. One—and I note that this is the object of the Opposition's amendment—is the expenditure, administration and policy of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, which is excluded from the present arrangements for Select Committee scrutiny. It is important that that should be understood. The handling of individual cases by the Crown Solicitor's Office and advice given by the Crown Solicitor are excluded, and the drafting of legislation is also excluded.
I emphasise that, in each of those cases, the equivalent functions in respect of England and Scotland are excluded from the remits of the Home Affairs, Scottish Affairs and Treasury and Civil Service Committees respectively. Moreover, the wording that we have used in the motion replicates exactly the wording in the existing Standing Order No. 130(1) defining the remit of existing Select Committees.

Mr. David Alton: I warmly welcome the announcement that the Leader of the House is making. Does he not accept, however, that the circumstances in Northern Ireland are very different from those prevailing in Scotland and Wales, especially in relation to the way in which legislation is dealt with—with so many orders and short debates in the House? The power to create legislation and frame Bills would be a very useful power for the Committee to have.
Will the Leader of the House undertake that, after six months or a year, he will at least look at the question again, and also at individual cases, such as that raised by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) in an Adjournment debate a couple of weeks ago?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman raised two very different questions. The second was whether a Select Committee could look at individual cases. I would not want to excite expectations of that, because that would raise major issues throughout the field. No doubt my right hon. and learned Friends the Law Officers would want to look at its implications in the United Kingdom as a whole —in my judgment, quite rightly too.
The earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question could at least be presented as more innocuous, enabling me to respond in what I hope is my characteristically reasonable fashion. That suggestion, too, would have quite wide implications. But I hope that I have shown by my general demeanour in the House over quite a long period that if people come forward with a reasonable proposition and can make a reasonable case for it, I will look at it in a reasonable way.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I took up the matter of the exemption of the prosecuting authorities with the Journal Office, and the Journal Office informed me that that part of the Standing Order was added on 18 July 1991, at the same time that the remit of the Home Affairs and Scottish Affairs Committees was


broadened to include the expenditure and administration of the prosecuting authorities in Britain and Scotland. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to rephrase what he said about the role of the Scottish Affairs and Home Affairs Committees in that regard?

Mr. Newton: It is certainly the case that the relevant part of the Standing Order was added at that time. The hon. Gentleman should understand, however, that the Opposition amendment would create a discrepancy between the remit of the Home Affairs Committee and that of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. The Home Affairs Committee does not look at individual cases or at legal advice—I accept that the hon. Gentleman's amendment allows for that—but neither does it look at the policy of the Law Officers' Departments.
The Opposition's amendment, while it exludes individual cases and legal advice, would allow the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to look at the policy of the DPP's office. I do not seek to pre-empt the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I have to tell him that the exclusion of those legal matters from Select Committee scrutiny was carefully considered—it was carefully considered at the time and the decision was accepted by the House—and that the House would be ill advised to permit Select Committee scrutiny of matters in Northern Ireland that are not subject to such scrutiny in respect of Great Britain.

Mr. McNamara: Is the expenditure and administration of the Director of Public Prosecutions within the cognisance of the Select Committees on Home Affairs and on Scottish Affairs?

Mr. Newton: I think that that is correct. The hon. Gentleman can argue that there is some discrepancy, but his amendment would produce a significant discrepancy, as I outlined, which leads me to advise the House not to accept it.

Mr. David Trimble: The recent exchanges have clarified the matter. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument on policy, but it is clear that his proposal will create an anomaly. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs will not be able to consider the administration and expenditure of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, whereas the Select Committee on Home Affairs can consider equivalent matters with regard to the Crown Prosecution Service, which discharges similar functions. There is a discrepancy, and I am sure that the Leader of the House would agree that that is undesirable.
Operations should be on a common basis. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore reconsider expenditure and administration and put the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs on the same basis as the Select Committee on Home Affairs?

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I might revert to the words—without repeating them excessively—that I used to answer the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) when I described what I hoped was my reasonable approach. I would not rule out any further consideration of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), but I cannot give an undertaking on the matter. We need to consider it with great care. I cannot advise the

House to accept the amendment, which attempts to deal with the problem, because it raises a significant point of principle about examining the policy of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It goes beyond what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) intended, although I shall not attempt to speak for him, and it clearly goes beyond what the hon. Member for Upper Bann intended.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the Leader of the House agree that, although the amendment may or may not be important to hon. Members—depending on where they sit—both sides of the House support the establishment of the Select Committee? That is much more important to voters outside the House than the differences that appear on the Order Paper. The issue may involve problems of principle, but they are gnat's play compared with the principle of establishing the Committee.

Mr. Newton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, especially since the administration and expenditure of the office in Northern Ireland is very small. When a similar point was raised in the 1991 debates, to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred, my predecessor advanced the argument that it made little difference in practice because of the minor scale of the expenditure. The point has been legitimately raised again, and I hope that I have responded in the best way that I can.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is right to say that the matter of overwhelming importance is whether we can set up a proper departmental Select Committee for Northern Ireland. The point of detail, while not insignificant, is small compared with the main issue.

Sir Anthony Grant: If the Select Committee is set up, it will have to move about and go to Northern Ireland, among other places. Has my right hon. Friend considered the composition of the Committee in the light of the problems caused to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry because of the lack of co-operation between Opposition and Government? Its members have been unable to travel and they have published a unanimous report, mentioned on the Order Paper, condemning the lack of co-operation. He will have to consider carefully whether the Select Committee will be affected.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. As he knows, I am cognisant of the difficulties of that Committee, although I have not intervened in the matter. I have frequently expressed the hope that the Opposition will return to the normal usual channels dealings and pairing, but I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not allow myself to be drawn by that line of that argument, which he was right to raise.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the leader of the House aware that all Labour Members on the Procedure Committee voted against setting up the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee? Although my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is entitled to his view, it is not shared by the majority of Labour Members, as will be shown later tonight. One of the main reasons why we are opposed is that we believe that no such Committee should be set up until general agreement is reached among


Northern Ireland Members. Bearing in mind what has taken place in the past few months, I believe that the proposal is most unfortunate. It is a sop to the Unionist party.

Mr. Newton: Not for the first time for all I know, the views of the hon. Gentleman are different from those of the majority of members of the Procedure Committee, whose Chairman is present and may wish to speak in the debate. It is also clear that the hon. Gentleman's views are not shared by a number of his hon. Friends. My view is with Birkenhead rather than with Walsall on this occasion and, probably, on many future occasions. [Interruption.] I shall not go further and risk being accused of pursuing a policy of divide and rule. The position speaks for itself.
While the other departmental Select Committees will cease to have primary responsibility for Northern Ireland issues, they will still be able to make their specialist knowledge available. The Standing Order already allows Committees to communicate evidence and other documents to one another and to meet concurrently to take evidence and for other purposes. Indeed the hon. Member for Birkenhead knows that because he is member of the Select Committee on Social Security, which held joint meetings with the Health Select Committee to discuss community care, when I was a Minister in the relevant field.
The Select Committee on Agriculture, might be carrying out an inquiry into a subject with a distinctive Northern Ireland angle. In such a case, that Committee and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee could pool their expertise by sharing their written evidence and holding a joint meeting to take oral evidence or discuss the issues involved. In that way, the specialist knowledge of other departmental Committees could be called on for the benefit of Northern Ireland, if it were to the mutual benefit of those Committees. That benefit is not lost by the establishment of the proposed new Committee.

Mr. Field: There are important differences between the administration of certain services on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. Because of the link between health and social services in Northern Ireland, the Select Committees on Social Security and on Health may profitably consider a link-up. Is the Leader of the House saying that the other Committees would not be welcome in Northern Ireland when they are pursuing evidence that is relevant to their wider inquiry?

Mr. Newton: No, I did not say that. I do not think that I even implied it. Perhaps through the Select Committee on Liaison or in other ways, Select Committees of the House normally tell each other what they are doing and find out whether there are ways in which they can fruitfully co-operate. There is no bar of the sort that the hon. Gentleman suggested.
On the size of the Committee, the Procedure Committee's first thoughts were for 16 members, but in its later report it recommended 13 or 15. The Government propose that the Committee should have a maximum of 13 members because, the larger the Committee, the more unwieldy it is likely to become. For example, it would be more difficult for all members to take part in evidence sessions. For those practical reasons, we thought that it was probably sensible to choose the smaller of the two figures suggested by the Procedure Committee.
How the available places should be allocated will not be

an easy matter, but it is a matter for the Committee of Selection under Standing Orders. The Government strongly support the Procedure Committee's recommendation that each of the Northern Ireland parties should have a place on the Committee and that, in accordance with normal practice, the Government should expect to be able to command a majority on it.
I now turn briefly to the third motion on the Order Paper which is really a piece of housekeeping or tidying up. If the House agrees to the setting up of a Select Committee called the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, there is an obvious danger of confusion with the existing Standing Committee called the Northern Ireland Committee, under Standing Order No. 99. That Committee exists to debate matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland that are referred to it from time to time by the House. As its closest parliamentary relatives are the Scottish Grand Committee and the Welsh Grand Committee, we propose to rename it —perhaps unimaginatively but sensibly—the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. That change should make the different character of the two Committees abundantly clear without in any way changing the powers, composition or function of the existing Committee.
I hope that I have said enough to outline the proposals to the House sufficient to provide a basis for the debate. I commend the proposals to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, to leave out
'expenditure administration and policy of'
and insert
'handling of individual cases by and legal advice given within Government by'.
As the last chairman of the only departmental Select Committee that existed before the creation of the present system—the Select Committee on Overseas Aid—I am instinctively sympathetic to the Select Committee system. Select Committees plays a vital role in improving the accountability of the Government to Parliament. Indeed, as current cases and inquiries show, there is a clear case for Select Committees' powers of departmental oversight to be strengthened.
It is important, however, not to confuse concern for the proper scrutiny of Government with the decision to create a Northern Ireland Select Committee, for that is not the reason why the present proposal is before the House. It is not simply a procedural parliamentary matter. It has wide-ranging political ramifications relating to the Government's Irish policy.
The issues relating to the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee are different from those relating to the establishment of any other Committee of the House. Northern Ireland cannot be treated as though it is the same as any other region of the United Kingdom.
Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where the population have a legally enshrined right to unite with another nation state if a majority so wish. That right reflects the divided allegiances that exist in Northern Ireland, with the nationalist community aspiring to a united Ireland, and the Unionist community aspiring to maintain —indeed, strengthen—the bonds that link Britain and Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where the legitimacy of the state is questioned. It is the


only region of the United Kingdom where armed troops are deployed on the streets in support of the civil power, as they have been during the past 20 years.
Moreover, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where the establishment of a Select Committee is an essential ingredient of one party's policy to seek steps towards greater integration of Britain with Northern Ireland. It is opposed by another party for just that reason. It has symbolic importance for both communities in Northern Ireland, which far outweighs its parliamentary significance.
In a briefing paper which I believe the Unionist party gave to the press and to others about the matter it says:
The symbolic effects will be more immediate. This will be the first positively unionist move by the British Government since our Parliamentary representation was increased in 1979.
It continues:
The Northern Ireland Select Committee will probably want to sit regularly in Belfast. When we see a group of familiar parliamentarians again in Stormont with their doings reported in the local media".
That is its significance for one particular party. For that reason, in the past, the Government, the Opposition and the Select Committee on Procedure have recognised that the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee cannot be isolated from the political situation in Northern Ireland.
The original decision not to recommend the creation of a Northern Ireland Select Committee was made by the Procedure Committee in 1978, its reason being:
The uncertainty about the future form of Government … for Northern Ireland.
That uncertainty has not altered.
In its report in 1990 on the working of the Select Committee system, the Select Committee on Procedure concluded that there should be no Northern Ireland Select Committee while the inter-party talks on the future of Northern Ireland were in progress. The Committee accepted that the decision to create a Northern Ireland Select Committee
is a matter whose implications go beyond the rights and responsibilities of the House to regulate its own affairs.
It is therefore not a purely organisational or procedural matter.
In its last report, the Procedure Committee could
see nothing to add or subtract from their previous views",
and left it to the Government to decide when an opportune time occurred to establish a Northern Ireland Select Committee.
In the past, the Government have opposed the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee. In 1990, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—the right hon. Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke)—in a submission to the Procedure Committee, asserted that the decision to establish a Northern Ireland Select Committee would need to
command the support from elected representatives of both sides of the community in Northern Ireland.
The Government until recently held to that approach. For example, as late as June 1992, the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, when asked about a Northern Ireland Select Committee, stated:
the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland believes that this is one of a series of complex issues that are best left open for consideration in the broad context of the current political talks."

—[Official Report, 25 June 1992; Vol. 210, c. 395.]
It has now been taken out of the broad context of the current political talks.
On 11 November 1992, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey), the Secretary of State again reiterated the Government's position that a Northern Ireland Select Committee would need
the support of the broad community in Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 11 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 892.]
It does not have the support of the broad community in Northern Ireland.
On 15 February 1993, the Secretary of State, in response to a parliamentary question, again cited the need to examine
the extent of support from elected representatives from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 15 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 35.]
It has no support from elected representatives from one of the communities in Northern Ireland.
On 22 July 1993, the Secretary of State was still concerned about the
extent of support from elected representatives on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 22 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 323.]
But by now, things were changing, and the matter was under review. The Government ceased to be concerned about support from both sides of the community. That means that the views and concerns of one section of the community in Northern Ireland—the minority community —no longer seem to have any relevance.
Unfortunately, the reasons for that change are all too obvious. Faced with the prospect of a defeat over Maastricht, the Government struck a squalid deal—or, as they prefer to call it, "an understanding"—with the Ulster Unionist party. The Government have put party interests ahead of the interests of all the people of the British Isles.
The primary reason why the Government have conceded a Northern Ireland Select Committee is not a high-minded concern for parliamentary democracy and the proper scrutiny of a Government department, but the need to maintain the "understanding" that was reached with the UUP before the summer recess.
Indeed, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was reported in a recent article in The Scotsman as claiming that part of his price for supporting the Prime Minister had been the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee. The Prime Minister has not sought to challenge or deny that claim—I gave him the opportunity.
The Government have allowed that squalid deal to override the principles agreed in March 1991 for the three-strand talks process, whereby any measures that effected the institutional arrangements governing Northern Ireland would be discussed in strand one talks and under the principle
nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
The Labour party maintains its support for the three-strand talks process and regrets the Government's decision to undermine the framework agreed in 1991 by unilaterally starting to unravel the arrangements governing strand one of the talks. The decision to establish a Northern Ireland Select Committee without the agreement of the representatives of both communities in Northern Ireland serves only to demonstrate that the Government are still prepared to allow short-term party interests to take precedence over the peace process.
The problem is this. The Government have two agendas: first, to secure and maintain their majority in the House by keeping their own right wing and the Ulster Unionists happy; secondly, to keep the peace process alive, as laid down in the Downing street declaration. Was it, I wonder, because the Northern Ireland Select Committee was being dangled before the Unionists that the Secretary of State could convince the Tanaiste that the Unionists would shortly return to the three-ring circus? The Government may consider their two agendas compatible, but I do not believe they are.
This unfortunate decision will hinder the peace initiative launched by the British and fish Governments with the publication of the Downing street declaration. It calls into question the Government's claim that their primary interest is to see
peace, stability and reconciliation by agreement",
as the declaration puts it. There is no agreement about the establishment of the Northern Ireland Select Committee.

Ms Kate Hoey: Does my hon. Friend agree that thousands of people in Northern Ireland—indeed, the vast majority—will, if they are listening to this debate, be interested in one thing alone? They want us to ensure that legislation that affects their lives—legislation that the House passes every day—is properly scrutinised, as is legislation affecting other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. McNamara: Indeed: that is why legislative Committees are set up after the Second Reading of Bills. This Committee will have no power to investigate or alter legislation. My hon. Friend ought to know what the Committee is about.
Not only have the Government introduced their motion without the agreement of representatives of both sides of the community; they also intend to gerrymander the composition of the Committee. They propose that the Labour party should have only two seats out of 13.
In 1990, the Procedure Committee recommended that, if a Northern Ireland Select Committee was established, it should have 16 members, including three from the Labour party. That was unacceptable in 1990, when Labour had 227 Members of Parliament; proposing that Labour should have only two seats now, when we have 270 Members of Parliament, is an abuse of power and of parliamentary majorities—especially when we are to have parity with a party that has 30 times fewer seats.
Equally unacceptable is the proposed division of seats among the Northern Ireland parties represented in the House—

Mr. Jonathan Evans: How many votes has Labour in Northern Ireland?

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman's party has no votes in Northern Ireland, but it is to have a majority on the Committee. [Interruption.] Well, it certainly has no seats in Northern Ireland.
The SDLP will have just one seat on the Committee, while the Unionist parties will be given four. The minority now makes up 43 per cent. of the population in Northern Ireland; yet its representatives are to be appointed to just 20 per cent. of the seats allotted to Northern Ireland parties. With a total population split of 43 per cent. to 57 per cent., there can be no excuse for such gross misrepresentation.
The Ulster Unionist party, with 34 per cent. of the Northern Ireland vote, will be given half the Northern Ireland seats on the Committee; the Ulster Popular

Unionist party will be given one fifth of those seats, on the basis of one seventeenth of the number of Northern Ireland seats and a vote of less than 50 per cent. in one constituency. That cannot be right.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman is confessing that Labour will never form a majority in the House, and therefore take the Government majority of seats? Will he also tell us when he will come to his amendment?

Mr. McNamara: I will come to my amendment in my own time.
As for the hon. Gentleman's first question, I assure him that there will be a Labour Government. In a letter to the Secretary of State, we told him that—although we felt that our representation on the Committee would be dispropor-tionate—we would concede, for the sake of argument, that there should be four Northern Ireland seats. We then said, "On the balance of what is left, you may have five seats and we will have four."
We thought that a reasonable offer, and I hope that we will follow similar principles when we form the Government. That is of particular concern to us because, having reached an understanding with the Government, the hon. Gentleman and his party will be able to maintain their majority on the Committee.

Mr. Frank Field: So far, my hon. Friend has produced a powerful case against the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee. I am puzzled: if this is such a principled stand, why has the amendment been tabled? Why do we not simply oppose the establishment of the Committee?

Mr. McNamara: For two reasons. First, despite our principled objection, we are unlikely to succeed in the voting—although, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, we have such a powerful case that we are certainly winning the argument. Secondly, and more important—[Interruption.] I will deal with my hon. Friend's second point shortly.
The Government have also attempted severely to restrict the terms of reference for a Northern Ireland Select Committee: that is why the Labour party has tabled an amendment. The Government motion would exclude the office of Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland from the Committee's scrutiny. If we are to have a Northern Ireland Select Committee, it is vital for it to be able to investigate all matters of concern to the peoples of Northern Ireland.
Our amendment would allow the Committee to investigate the thrust of the policy of the Director of Public Prosecutions—his order of priorities, his attitudes to policy issues such as killings by the security forces, and his decisions not to prosecute in areas where the community has real fears.
Such problems have been raised in a variety of cases, affecting both communities, and we debated them only recently in an Adjournment debate. The failure to prosecute, and lack of knowledge of the policy behind that failure, can have an adverse impact on public perceptions of the role of the security forces, and can therefore affect both the administration of justice and the upholding of the rule of law.
We have not asked for any individual cases to be examined, or to be put to the Committee; nor does our amendment suggest that we should look into the various


matters referred to by the Leader of the House. We believe, however, that the Government should, for the first time, be brought to book in regard to matters involving policy, in an area of such sensitivity as this.
It is significant that powers of administration, expenditure and organization—powers possessed by the Scottish and Home Affairs Select Committees—are being denied to the Irish Committee, if the House decides to proceed with it. It will not run pari passu with the English Select Committees; it will still be treated as a special case.
I hope that, if the matter proceeds, the House will accept the amendment. Even if it is carried, however, Labour will vote against the motion, because of its symbolism as a triumphalist integrationist measure. It does not have the support of both communities in Northern Ireland— something that the Government previously considered crucial. Instead of ensuring equality, it entrenches divisions that already exist, and hardens Unionist intransigence rather than encouraging compromise.
If the Secretary of State considers that this measure, the increased use of the newly named Northern Ireland Grand Committee and the partial change in legislative matters put before the House, will persuade the Unionists to sit down with Dublin, I believe that he is mistaken. They will want more and more—"As long as you pay the danegeld, you'll never get rid of the Dane".
The Government must recognise that there can be no purely internal solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. An integrationist solution will not work, because it fails to deal with the divided allegiances which exist there. The Government should not be jeopardising the peace process for the sake of a short-term political expedient, but working with the Irish Government and the parties in Northern Ireland to agree a just and lasting settlement that respects the rights and aspirations of both communities. They should not be favouring one community at the expense of the other.
For those reasons, we are opposed to the establishment of a Select Committee.

Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry that the official Opposition are making this a party political debate. The weakness of their argument is evident when they have to drag in Maastricht, because this is a House of Commons matter about government.
I congratulate the Government and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on at last grasping the nettle and establishing a Select Committee on Northern Ireland which, as I shall try to explain, is something that has been recommended since the Select Committee on Procedure's report on Select Committees in 1978–79. Previous Secretaries of State have prevaricated, which has culminated in no action being taken, so my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State deserves great credit. I shall be brief, because I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
So that there can be no misunderstanding, I shall make it clear how the current situation with regard to a Select Committee on Northern Ireland has arisen. The Procedure Committee's report in 1977–78 said:
the development of the system has been piecemeal and has resulted in a decidedly patchy coverage of the activities of government departments and agencies, and of the major areas of

public policy and administration.
It went on to say that although some Departments were subject to detailed scrutiny,
other major departments have received scant or at least insufficient attention.
It said that that was especially so in one case—Northern Ireland. The report continued:
The House should no longer rest content with an incomplete and unsystematic scrutiny of the activities of the Executive merely as a result of historical accident or sporadic pressure and it is … desirable for the different branches of the public service to be subject to an even and regular incidence of select committee investigation into their activities and to have a clear understanding of the division of responsibilities between the committees which conduct it.
The paragraph concluded that it was essential to have a means of scrutinising the activities of the public service on a continuing basis.
It will be noted that the report excluded reference to responsibility for Northern Ireland affairs because of
uncertainty about the future form of government for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We recognise that the appointment of separate committees for these areas may need to be further considered in the light of future constitutional developments.
That was way back in 1977–78.
In 1989–90, the Select Committee on Procedure examined the scrutiny of Northern Ireland affairs and found that it was
fragmented among many different Committees.
It said that the scrutiny of Northern Ireland corresponded to the functions exercised by Departments shadowed by specific Select Committees. In other words, housing in Northern Ireland falls within the terms of reference of the Select Committee on the Environment, even though responsibility is exercised by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Could anything be more foolish?
On the same basis, the Committee found that the Northern Ireland prison system and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the structure of secondary education and the health service in Northern Ireland could be examined by the Select Committees on Home Affairs, on Education, on Science and Arts and on Social Services. That is nonsense because a separate Secretary of State is responsible for each subject.
The Procedure Committee's report in 1989–90 said:
All the same, it can hardly be said, on the basis of the evidence we have received, that Northern Ireland matters are receiving the attention from the departmentally-related Select Committees which they deserve".
The Committee's second report concluded that a
lacuna in the system of scrutiny has been the lack of a separate Committee to monitor the policy, expenditure and administration of the Northern Ireland Office … Like Wales and Scotland, Northern Ireland has its own Secretary of State with authority over a wide range of matters … In that respect, therefore, the powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are more extensive than those exercised by his counterpart in Wales … It is therefore anomalous from a practical point of view that no separate Select Committee exists to oversee the affairs of Northern Ireland … It will be clear that we see a case for bringing the Northern Ireland Office formally within the system of scrutiny by Select Committees.
It also stated that it did
not believe that the uncertainties over the future administration of the Province can be allowed to preclude indefinitely the establishment of proper arrangements for the scrutiny by the House of the Northern Ireland Department".
I have quoted from paragraphs 272 to 278 of the Select Committee's report—which, incidentally, was supported by all the Labour Members on it. No one voted against it.

Mr. Winnick: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we concluded that we should not recommend a Select Committee on Northern Ireland at that stage because of the advice given to us by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We thought that that advice, given on political grounds, was all important and we made that clear in our report. We were advised that there should be a consensus of opinion in Northern Ireland before any such Committee was established. The Government have changed their mind for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman's comments go very much further than the report. Although it may be tedious, I read again from the Select Committee's report, which said that the Committee did
not believe that the uncertainties over the future administration of the Province can be allowed to preclude indefinitely the establishment of proper arrangements for the scrutiny by the House of the Northern Ireland Department".
The Select Committee's 1993–94 report concluded:
The Committee see nothing to add or subtract from their previous views.
The Committee believed that the House and the Government would decide when it was appropriate to set up a Committee. [Interruption.] It is the House that will decide. I think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North understands that.

Mr. McNamara: It is the Government who will table the motion.

Sir Peter Emery: That is brilliant; I never realised that. That is the most outstanding piece of procedural information that I have heard in the House for many a moon. [Interruption.] That will not get the hon. Gentleman very far.
From a procedural point of view, it is absolutely right that every Department of state should be scrutinised by a Select Committee.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The right hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure. Clearly, the procedure that he is outlining is factually correct, but even he must realise that, although he is concerned mainly with procedure and the need for all Government Departments to be closely scrutinised, the Government's decision to table the motion was not influenced only by procedure—it was deeply political.

Sir Peter Emery: Of course I accept—

Mr. Marshall: The right hon. Gentleman should not trivialise the issue.

Sir Peter Emery: If the hon. Gentleman asks a question in the proper manner, I shall answer it. He should not put words into my mouth. There is of course a political factor in the consideration of Northern Ireland; no one denies that. It seems that the vast majority of Members of Parliament elected in Northern Ireland wish to have a Northern Ireland Select Committee.
If we are considering democracy, we do not need to consider the percentages that were cited from the Opposition Front Bench, but we should consider the Members who have been elected by the people. The people have a right to those who represent them being able to work in a Select Committee.
After all, we are granting powers to a Committee so that it can monitor, investigate, examine witnesses and act as a public and parliamentary watchdog for the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, his Department and the Ministers under him. I have confidence in him, as I have confidence in all my Ministers, but I still believe that they need watching and that they need to have a House of Commons Committee on their backs. That is right and proper. I am sorry that the Labour party does not seem to agree.
The appointment of the Committee should not be interpreted as a political factor, as the Opposition have made out. The political difficulties in Ulster—

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry—of course.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: While I am touched by my right hon. Friend's confidence in me as one of his Ministers, may I say that it is not only the majority of Members of Parliament who support the Select Committee. Does he accept that it is my appreciation of the feelings of people throughout Northern Ireland that they want to see more parliamentary control and scrutiny over legislation in Northern Ireland as a mitigation of the effects of direct rule, however benificent that may be? They do not share the only substantive reason for opposing the Committee that we have heard—that the Unionists want it.

Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted to be supported by the Secretary of State. He has added grace and charm to my few remarks as well as great factual substantiation. As well as the public being represented by their Members of Parliament, it is the width of public opinion in Northern Ireland, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred, which is important.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Emery: Yes, for the last time.

Mr. Canavan: I do not recall the right hon. Gentleman supporting the establishment of a Scottish Select Committee in the previous Parliament, when there was no such creature, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland wanted the establishment of such a Committee, as did the overwhelming majority of Members of Parliament who represented Scottish constituencies. The Government denied that during the entire Parliament, for political reasons.

Sir Peter Emery: Whatever the hon. Gentleman may want to say against the Government, he cannot say it against me, because I, with the Select Committee on Procedure, recommended that there should be a Select Committee for Northern Ireland. As I was tutored by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the Government tabled the motion, not the Procedure Committee.
Therefore, may we consider the specific reasons why, on a political basis, the Committee will be useful in dealing with the difficulties in Ulster? I hope and believe that the new Select Committee will be able to ensure that the people in Northern Ireland can have confidence in what goes on in Westminster and in the dedication of Northern


Ireland Ministers to look after the problems of Northern Ireland. They will know that the Members of Parliament whom they elect will have the power to ensure that the interests of Northern Ireland will be not only considered on the Floor of the House, but will be under close scrutiny and that Ministers will be cross-examined by their own elected representatives.
It will be good for Northern Ireland on political grounds to know that it will have an extra power through Northern Irish Ministers and Members of Parliament. I welcome the motion, and I believe that it is long overdue.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I trust that the Leader of the House will not mind my paying tribute to the Select Committee on Procedure and especially its chairman, the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), for the consistent and fair-minded approach to the desirability of extending the trend of comparatively new Select Committees, which was put in place in 1979 by Lord St. John of Fawsley, the then Leader of the House.
During the consultations leading up to that decision, which was not unanimously received in the House even in those days, I put in a bid for a Northern Ireland Committee. I was only partially successful and my pleas were heeded to some extent. The Government, who, we must remember, had a safe majority after the 1979 election, said on 25 June:
we have thought it right to provide that they should be within the scope of the new Select Committees at Westminster."—[Official Report, 25 June 1979; Vol. 969, c. 40.]
—as a temporary step.
That led to the beneficial visits of the existing Select Committees to Northern Ireland, which have given a great deal of encouragement and reassurance to all sections of the community. The visits illustrated in a flesh and blood fashion that their rights and privileges as citizens of the United Kingdom were not being overlooked in any way.
In the intervening 15 years, Northern Ireland has benefited greatly from the scrutiny of those specialised Committees and, if I heard the Leader of the House correctly towards the end of his speech, that valuable overview will continue with the same civilised degree of co-operation which exists, for example, between the Scottish Select Committee and the specialist subject Committees, which undertake, by invitation perhaps, by consultation, by agreement or perhaps through the Liaison Committee, the scrutiny of special matters in Scotland.
We are grateful to the Leader of the House for taking so much care to ensure that the terms of reference of the new Northern Ireland Select Committee and its relationship to those other Committees were set out so clearly in his speech. Will he confirm that the title of the Committee —I thought that he may have left out a word—will be the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee?

Mr. Newton: indicated assent.

Mr. Molyneaux: I thank the Minister.
I pay tribute once more to the right hon. Member for Honiton and his Select Committee, which initiated in 1990 the process that has resulted in this motion. They have given careful consideration to all the submissions made five long years ago and they have updated their thinking at

frequent intervals since the Committee made that decision in principle; we want them to know that their efforts are greatly appreciated.
While debating motion No. 3, I pay sincere tribute to two former Members who have been elevated to another place—Lord Wilson and Lord Glenamara—who decided following the destruction of Stormont that Northern Ireland should have a measure of accountability as a temporary measure before they could progress. That resulted in the establishment of the Northern Ireland Committee. Lord Glenamara, then Ted Short, will be remembered by all Opposition parties with great gratitude for the scheme that he introduced to provide financial support to the Opposition parties which is enjoyed today and which has been recently increased. I pay tribute where tribute is due.
Another consultant, if I may refer to him in that way, in that process of consultation with Lord Wilson and Lord Glenamara, was my colleague Enoch Powell. During those consultations with the then Labour Government, I cannot ever recall a suggestion of a sordid deal being done, although the Wilson Government had a single-figure majority and eventually no majority at all.
It may be that, almost 20 years ago, Lord Wilson was aware of the consistent position of my party, which is that, provided that Her Majesty's Government of the day govern in the best interests of the United Kingdom in general and of Northern Ireland in particular, we see no reason why we should terminate the life of Parliament prematurely. That remains the position, and I hope that it will in some way reassure the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and perhaps lower his blood pressure.
I always found that Lord Wilson, unlike some of his successors, had the ability to perceive objects not yet visible to the naked eye, and sometimes not even over the horizon. With its grand new title, the Committee's authority will be enhanced and its influence will be increased. I trust that, through consultation, we can find ways of making fuller use of that body, now the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.
For example, we need a clearer understanding of the number of sittings per Session, because that seems to fluctuate from year to year. We also need, not this evening but on another occasion, a clear definition of the procedure for adjourning a debate in Committee and returning to the same subject another day. We have had experience of being ruled out of order when we have suggested, as a result of unanimous agreement in the Committee, that we have not quite finished our deliberations. At about 12.55 we would decide among ourselves to adjourn and come back another time, only to find that some obscure rule made that impossible, although that used to be possible in the early days of the Committee's activities, under the original guidelines of 20 years ago.
On behalf of my colleagues, I have great pleasure in welcoming and supporting motions Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I am grateful to be called, and I shall endeavour to be brief and to keep my remarks succinct. I must say straight away that I have sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because although I have no objection in principle to the measures


and will support them, I have certain reservations. Having expressed some of those outside the House, I now wish to express them inside.
There are political ramifications here. I wholeheartedly agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and others said about the parliamentary context. But we are dealing with something that goes beyond Parliament. We are engaged in what may be one of the most historic endeavours ever to try to secure peace in the island of Ireland.
Northern Ireland is a special case that goes beyond purely parliamentary matters. A major effort for peace is being made and in comparison the measures before us, worthy as they are, represent a small endeavour. Nothing should be done to impede progress in any way on the joint declaration that has been worked for so hard by my right hon. and hon. Friends in Government.
This is a question of timing; it was, it is now and it remains so. The measures before us will be perceived by certain elements vital to peace to be an integrationist move, and they will see it as the wrong time to make such a move. I do not want to trivialise the matter, but as far as the nationalist community is concerned, in this whole great endeavour it takes two—indeed, more than two—to tango. The process cannot go on with one side alone.
The nationalist community—the 43 per cent. that we have heard about—is a vital part of the peace process and anything that we as a House do concerning Northern Ireland should have the rationalists' support. Certainly this measure should have both their support and that of their leadership before it is put into practice.
Of course Sinn Fein/IRA prevaricates. The Downing street declaration and the peace process are far from over. My definite view is that those people could still come in, and we must work with that process. The rhetoric of some of us has not helped in the early stages, in the vital context of getting them, or at least some of them, to come in. I hazard a guess that this measure will not help either.
The Government of Ireland—this is the last section of the pattern with which I shall deal—are also a vital component part of any settlement and of any peace on the island. By supporting what we are doing together through the joint declaration, they deprive Sinn Fein/IRA of any claim to political legitimacy and make it into what could be called a historical reject. While they are with us that will be the status of Sinn Fein/IRA. So if the Irish Government opt out in any way or diminish their efforts to implement the joint declaration the peace process would sustain a blow that it would not be able to survive.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—clearly, my remarks have little to do with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House —for a simple assurance that he has considered the matter in the greater context, that it is purely a parliamentary process, that it will not be perceived as an integrationist move, and that it will in no way hinder the all-important peace process, which should be our overwhelming priority.

Mr. Harry Barnes: There are some bad reasons for the introduction of the Select Committee and the hon. Gentleman has spelt out the problems, in terms of alienating the nationalist community and of the Government's simply using the idea to overcome their problems. However, there are some good democratic reasons, too, which will benefit the whole of Northern Ireland and everyone involved. Should not the

House concentrate on the positive aspects of the proposals, pushing them forward and ensuring that they form the agenda, rather than concentrating on some of the underlying poor reasons? Perhaps the bad reasons are motivating people in various ways, but should we not turn that into a positive agenda?

Mr. Temple-Morris: I am glad that that remark came from the hon. Gentleman. I accept it, in the context that any judgment on the issue must be a matter of balance. We come down on one side or the other. We have not yet heard all the arguments from Northern Ireland Members, and it is a question of balance. I have come down, and have made my position fairly clear by expressing a serious reservation.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not wish to detain the House too long. I share most of the misgivings expressed by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), and I wish that he would have the courage to follow them and vote with the Opposition parties. Much of what he said expresses a fear shared not only by Opposition Members but by many people throughout Great Britain and the island of Ireland.
I must say at the outset that I am a fervent supporter of the Select Committee procedure. We certainly need parliamentarians overseeing Departments. That has been one of the most important constitutional changes over the past 14 years. Because of that background and that feeling, I wholeheartedly support the establishment of a Select Committee for Northern Ireland. If only I could be convinced that it was a purely procedural matter, I should follow the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). I heard what he said and I am sure that he is convinced that the matter is purely procedural. However, to me and to many other people the decision to establish the Select Committee seems not simply a procedural matter but a deeply political matter.
None of us would disagree that the present governance of Northern Ireland is totally inadequate. But as parliamentarians, most of us, except our colleagues from the Province itself, have accepted that position because we believe that the only possible solution would involve political institutions in the Province acceptable to both sections of the community there, and also a clearer definition of the triangular relationship between Belfast, London and Dublin. It is for those reasons that we have hitherto been prepared to accept the democratic deficit in the Province.
I am alarmed by the fact that the Government appear this evening to be undermining that approach. What the Secretary of State said about 20 minutes ago served only to fuel my fears that this action will be interpreted as a first step towards a purely internal settlement. After this evening's decision has been made, the Government will, without a shadow of doubt, come under increasing pressure to change the Order in Council method of dealing with Northern Ireland business—the very point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made himself.
The Secretary of State will also come under increasing pressure to reorganise local government in the Province. After tonight's decision the Government will find it increasingly difficult to resist the proposals for change. Moreover, the Government's decision represents a total about-face. Before, they have always said that they will not


support the establishment of a Select Committee for Northern Ireland until there is agreement between the elected representatives from both communities in the Province. They have also said that they will not support the establishment of a Select Committee until there is an outcome, successful or not, of the three-strand process. Neither of those conditions appears to have been met.
Reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that tonight's decision is a cheap political fix—the victory of political expediency over political principle. It represents the payment of a debt owed by the Government to the Official Unionists. I do not blame the latter for exacting that price from the Government for having supported them in the Lobby over Maastricht last year. This motion has everything to do with the survival of the Government and nothing to do with the best interests or future well-being of Northern Ireland. I consider that a disgrace; the people of Northern Ireland deserve a great deal better.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: If there were any integrity on the part of the Government in their dealings with both communities in Northern Ireland, this motion would not be before us tonight. If the Government genuinely believed that both communities should be dealt with equally, the motion would not be before us. By their action tonight the Government have forfeited the right to be regarded as even-handed—as honest brokers—in Northern Ireland affairs.
More than that, the Government have jeopardised the integrity of the inter-party talks, based delicately as they were on the six-party agreement of 26 March 1991. The Government have shattered that process. They have betrayed the trust given to them by the nationalist people of Northern Ireland and they have broken faith with the Irish Government, their partner in the cause of peace in Ireland.
The British Government have tried to dupe the Irish Government and others with their claim that this is merely a procedural matter with no repercussions beyond the confines of this House. It is no such thing: it never was. This is a political act; Unionist votes were bought at a crucial time last year—first, for the vote to kick miners out of their jobs, even though their sons were defending us from terrorism in Northern Ireland; and, secondly, to save the Government's bacon over Maastricht. This is a political decision; it has nothing to do with procedure.
Since 1978, the Procedure Committee has time and again said that it is up to the Government whether the process should go ahead. Time and again, that Committee has commented on the political aspects of the problem. I do not have time to quote all the Committee's recommendations over the years, but the most recent one, which appeared on 1 December 1993, stated:
'It should be remembered that the only reason given by the Procedure Committee in 1978 for its decision not to recommend the creation of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs was the continuing uncertainty over the future consultational arrangements for the Province' … However, the Committee accepted the advice of the then Secretary of State in 1990 that appointment of such a Committee at that time 'whilst attractive in principle, could cause difficulties for the initiative launched by the Secretary of State.'
The Committee see nothing to add or subtract from their previous views. The appointment of the Committee must rest with the

decision of the Government to propose to the House its appointment and its terms of reference.
As I say, this has nothing to do with procedure and everything to do with Government politics.
I ask whichever Minister replies to the debate the following question: does this mean that the premise on which previous recommendations were made to the Select Committee by the Secretary of State no longer applies?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am entirely satisfied that the setting up of the Select Committee, if the House approves it, will have no adverse effect on the talks process, to which I attach great importance, as I know the hon. Gentleman does, too.

Mr. McGrady: I thank the Secretary of State for that information, but he and I both know that the principles of the 26 March 1991 agreement among the six parties to the talks, especially those pertaining to the three strands of the relationship between this Government and the Government of the Republic, clearly meant that nothing was to be agreed until all was agreed. As a party to that agreement the SDLP has never agreed with this proposed procedure.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I cannot allow that to pass—

Mr. McGrady: I have not given way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As the only representative of the nationalist community to speak in this debate, I have only a few minutes left in which to make the case against the motion.
We know, even from its timing, that this was a political decision. Within 24 hours of the Downing street declaration of 15 December, the Leader of the House had announced that a Select Committee would be set up. How could any sensible person conclude that that was not a sop to the Unionists to get them to acquiesce in the Downing street declaration?
I must move on quickly to the question of numbers. There can be no justification for the lack of equitable representation for the communities of Northern Ireland in this proposal. The recommendation was that those communities must be allowed to participate in the scrutiny of the business of this House, but that is not borne out by what has happened.
In public statements and letters throughout 1993–15 February and 22 July, to name but two such occasions—the Secretary of State reiterated the extent of the support from the elected representatives of both sides of the community that would be needed for such a move. These statements alternated with demands that procedures such as this must have widespread support. This procedure does not command widespread support among the representatives of Northern Ireland—a fact that will be illustrated when we divide on the motion tonight. Also, the motion has been put to the House on false premises.
I could go on to deal with the lack of consultation, even with my party, on the proposals before us, but I do not have the time to do that. I ask the House to reject the proposal and to support instead the inter-party talks in Northern Ireland and the peace process, against which the proposal will impact. There is no doubt about that.
The establishment of the Northern Ireland Select Committee is ill conceived, and it will have political ramifications. It would also be incorrect to proceed with such a Committee when the British and Irish Governments


are currently working towards a peace settlement, and at a time when there is hope that inter-party talks will be re-established.
This sop given to the Unionist parties did not bear fruit. We understand that the Democratic Unionist party withdrew from the inter-party talks. The Ulster Unionist party withdrew from the talks, or at least agreed the basis on which they were to take part. Only my party, the Alliance party, and the British and Irish Governments have been willing to sit around the table. The Unionists did not get the prize for the price of their sell-out of the nationalist people of Northern Ireland.
Obviously, I have not been able to develop the arguments that I wished to develop tonight. It is a disgrace that such an important matter has been given so little time. I certainly recommend that, for the sake of the inter-party talks, community relations and peace in Ireland, the House throws out the proposal tonight.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: This has been an interesting debate, but the official Opposition—and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who made a passionate and understandable speech on behalf of the Social Democratic and Labour party—may be in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Admittedly, the bath water might be quite murky in some of its aspects.
I agree with the interesting speech made by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris); I have doubts also. Certainly my party is in favour of setting up the Committee. Nothing is needed more in terms of Northern Ireland politics than the kind of working relationship which can often be achieved across party divides in a Select Committee context.
We have been at the forefront of the campaign during the past 10 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has a distinguished record of arguing for the setting up of such a Committee as is being created this evening. It has been a long time coming, and it is not before time that we are having the motion.
The Leader of the House must understand that the fears and concerns mentioned by the hon. Member for Leominster are real. There are perceptions that the Government were in fact pandering to the Unionists, and that the motion and the Select Committee are rewards for services rendered during the Maastricht debate. The Leader of the House and the Government must do more; they must do everything they can to clear up that question, otherwise it may sour and prejudice the important work of the Select Committee in the future.
Has the Secretary of State received any representations from the Government of the Republic of Ireland? That question must be openly addressed to get it out of the road to allow the work of the Committee to start without the relationship being soured.
I wish to ask one or two questions about the membership of the Committee. The Leader of the House can no doubt confirm that shortly there will need to be another debate on the issue. I hope that it will be before Easter. The Committee of Selection will nominate members for the Committee, and those names will be in the form of a debatable motion. Indeed, the names would be amendable in terms of the constitution of that Committee

as suggested by the Committee of Selection. Hon. Members will get a chance to look line by line and name by name at the constitution of the Committee. I certainly reserve the right at that time to make observations about the way in which the Committee is set up.
I do not think that a case has been made by the Government for a Government built-in majority. I would like to bid for a minority party and my party to be considered for a place on the Committee. I was surprised, and a bit disappointed, that consideration of the possibility of setting up a joint Committee with the noble Lords in another place had not been actively canvassed. There is a lot of talent there—Lords Fitt, Blease and Brookeborough have distinguished records, and they could make a contribution to the work of the Committee.
The question which has been addressed in terms of the need for a formal review after six months is a good one, and the circumstances to which I adverted earlier rather require that to be undertaken. The hon. Member for Leominster made a good point about the need for progress to be made on the objective of devolution, and further executive power sharing. Indeed, the work of the British-Irish Joint Parliamentary Committee is important and ought not to be prejudiced in any way by the decisions that we are taking this evening.
I think that the amendment should be supported. Northern Ireland has special circumstances, and Orders in Council are restrictive methods of legislation. I think that the work of the Department of Public Prosecutions certainly should be scrutinised. The Leader of the House must deal more adequately with allegations of political deals, but, that said, there should be no doubt that what is good enough for other departmental Committees and other state Select Committees should be good enough for Northern Ireland.

Rev. William McCrea: On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome the setting up of a Select Committee for Northern Ireland affairs.
I have had the honour of representing my constituency in this House since 1983, yet I do not believe that many hon. Members are aware of the lack of accountability and democracy in Northern Ireland. We need proper scrutiny on behalf of our constituents, and this debate certainly gives us an opportunity for that. I thank the Procedure Committee for making the recommendation, and I am delighted that it is before the House. I can assure the House that, if my party has a representative on the Select Committee, it will play a vital part in the scrutiny.
It is rather rich of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) to comment on the lack of cross-community support. He talks about the need for cross-community support for the Select Committee, and yet there was no need for cross-community support for the Anglo-Irish Agreement or for the London-Dublin deal.
The measure effectively restrains the Executive, and hands power to the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. It is disgraceful that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies want to take from us that right of scrutiny of the Executive. Bearing in mind that all other Departments are brought to account, it is only right that the Executive in Northern Ireland—the


Secretary of State, Ministers and the Northern Ireland Office—should be brought to account for some of the actions which they have forced upon people.
Hon. Members have talked a lot about the peace initiative. Many people in Northern Ireland believe that talk of a peace initiative is rather bogus. We were promised "Peace by Christmas" and "Peace within a week" by the right hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, on the basis of the Adams-Hume talks. I think that that was rather disgusting. They know that that is a bogus peace which will take us down a cul de sac. It will take us out of the United Kingdom—our rightful place—and towards a united Ireland. That has been the aim and object of all the terrorism that the United Kingdom has endured over the years.
My party has held a torch, as have other parties, for the Select Committee. I am delighted that we will have the right to scrutinise Ministers and the Department. Direct rule is remote and Ministers must be brought to book. If that is so for Ministers, it should certainly be so for the civil service in Northern Ireland. The civil servants have been ruling the Province for a number of years, and they are rather uncomfortable at the thought that they are to be scrutinised and held to account for some of the deals which they have done behind the backs of the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I certainly welcome the fact that we will have an opportunity to see the civil servants answer to the elected representatives of the people of the Province.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [4 March].

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Tim Devlin: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With reference to the point of order raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), may I say that I left my office at 7 Millbank, walked here and voted. The doors are not yet closed. In view of that fact, I wonder whether you are aware of the lack of difficulty in voting from 7 Millbank.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): My immediate predecessor dealt adequately with that point of order.

The House having divided: Ayes 240, Noes 298.

Division No. 158]
[8.38 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bennett, Andrew F.


Ainger, Nick
Benton, Joe


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bermingham, Gerald


Allen, Graham
Berry, Dr. Roger


Alton, David
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blunkett, David


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Boateng, Paul


Armstrong, Hilary
Boyes, Roland


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bradley, Keith


Austin-Walker, John
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Barnes, Harry
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Barron, Kevin
Burden, Richard


Battle, John
Byers, Stephen


Bayley, Hugh
Caborn, Richard


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Callaghan, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)





Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Canavan, Dennis
Hutton, John


Cann, Jamie
Ingram, Adam


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clapham, Michael
Jamieson, David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Janner, Greville


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jowell, Tessa


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbett, Robin
Keen, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Corston, Ms Jean
Khabra, Piara S.


Cousins, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cox, Tom
Kirkwood, Archy


Cryer, Bob
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cummings, John
Lewis, Terry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Litherland, Robert


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Livingstone, Ken


Dalyell, Tam
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Darling, Alistair
Loyden, Eddie


Davidson, Ian
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McAllion, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
McCartney, Ian


Denham, John
McFall, John


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
Mackinlay, Andrew


Donohoe, Brian H.
McLeish, Henry


Dowd, Jim
McMaster, Gordon


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McNamara, Kevin


Eagle, Ms Angela
McWilliam, John


Enright, Derek
Madden, Max


Etherington, Bill
Mahon, Alice


Fatchett, Derek
Mandelson, Peter


Faulds, Andrew
Marek, Dr John


Fisher, Mark
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Martlew, Eric


Fraser, John
Maxton, John


Fyfe, Maria
Meacher, Michael


Galbraith, Sam
Meale, Alan


Galloway, George
Michael, Alun


Gapes, Mike
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Garrett, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gerrard, Neil
Milburn, Alan


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Miller, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Godsiff, Roger
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morgan, Rhodri


Gordon, Mildred
Morley, Elliot


Gould, Bryan
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Graham, Thomas
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mudie, George


Grocott, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Gunnell, John
Murphy, Paul


Hain, Peter
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hall, Mike
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hanson, David
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hardy, Peter
O'Hara, Edward


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Neill, Martin


Harvey, Nick
Parry, Robert


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Patchett, Terry


Henderson, Doug
Pickthall, Colin


Heppell, John
Pike, Peter L.


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Pope, Greg


Hinchliffe, David
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Home Robertson, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hood, Jimmy
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Prescott, John


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoyle, Doug
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Quin, Ms Joyce






Radice, Giles
Stevenson, George


Raynsford, Nick
Stott, Roger


Redmond, Martin
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Reid, Dr John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rendel, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Tyler, Paul


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Rogers, Allan
Wallace, James


Rooney, Terry
Walley, Joan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Sedgemore, Brian
Watson, Mike


Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W>


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Short, Clare
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Dennis Turner.


Steinberg, Gerry





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Aitken, Jonathan
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alexander, Richard
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cormack, Patrick


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Couchman, James


Amess, David
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkins, Robert
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Devlin, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Dicks, Terry


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dorrell, Stephen


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bates, Michael
Dover, Den


Batiste, Spencer
Duncan, Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bendall, Vivian
Dunn, Bob


Beresford, Sir Paul
Durant, Sir Anthony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dykes, Hugh


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Eggar, Tim


Booth, Hartley
Elletson, Harold


Boswell, Tim
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bowden, Andrew
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bowis, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evennett, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Faber, David


Brazier, Julian
Fabricant, Michael


Bright, Graham
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fishburn, Dudley


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Forman, Nigel


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Forth, Eric


Budgen, Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Burns, Simon
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Butler, Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Butterfill, John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fry, Sir Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gale, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Gallie, Phil


Carttiss, Michael
Gardiner, Sir George


Churchill, Mr
Garnier, Edward


Clappison, James
Gill, Christopher


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gillan, Cheryl


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Colvin, Michael
Gorst, John


Conway, Derek
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)





Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moate, Sir Roger


Hague, William
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moss, Malcolm


Hanley, Jeremy
Needham, Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Neubert, Sir Michael


Harris, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Heald, Oliver
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hendry, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Hicks, Robert
Page, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Paice, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patnick, Irvine


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Horam, John
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pickles, Eric


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Tom


Key, Robert
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shersby, Michael


Knox, Sir David
Sims, Roger


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Soames, Nicholas


Legg, Barry
Speed, Sir Keith


Leigh, Edward
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lidington, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lightbown, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spring, Richard


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Sproat, Iain


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Luff, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew
Stephen, Michael


Maclean, David
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Madel, Sir David
Sumberg, David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sweeney, Walter


Malone, Gerald
Sykes, John


Mans, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thomason, Roy


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Merchant, Piers
Thurnham, Peter






Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Whitney, Ray


Tracey, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Tredinnick, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Trend, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Trotter, Neville
Wilkinson, John


Twinn, Dr Ian
Willetts, David


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wilshire, David


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Walden, George
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Ward, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Waterson, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Watts, John
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Wells, Bowen

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question Put:—

The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 221.

Division No. 159]
[8.52 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Aitken, Jonathan
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Coe, Sebastian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Colvin, Michael


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Conway, Derek


Alton, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Amess, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arbuthnot, James
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cormack, Patrick


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Couchman, James


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cran, James


Aspinwall, Jack
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Atkins, Robert
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Day, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Devlin, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bates, Michael
Dicks, Terry


Batiste, Spencer
Dorrell, Stephen


Beggs, Roy
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bellingham, Henry
Dover, Den


Bendall, Vivian
Duncan, Alan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dunn, Bob


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Durant, Sir Anthony


Body, Sir Richard
Dykes, Hugh


Booth, Hartley
Eggar, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Elletson, Harold


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bowden, Andrew
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bowis, John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evennett, David


Brazier, Julian
Faber, David


Bright, Graham
Fabricant, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fishburn, Dudley


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Forman, Nigel


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Budgen, Nicholas
Forth, Eric


Burns, Simon
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Butler, Peter
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Butterfill, John
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Cariile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fry, Sir Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gale, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Gallie, Phil


Carttiss, Michael
Gardiner, Sir George


Churchill, Mr
Garnier, Edward


Clappison, James
Gill, Christopher


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gillan, Cheryl





Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marland, Paul


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marlow, Tony


Gorst, John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hague, William
Merchant, Piers


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Iain


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Moate, Sir Roger


Harris, David
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Harvey, Nick
Monro, Sir Hector


Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hawkins, Nick
Moss, Malcolm


Hawksley, Warren
Needham, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Nelson, Anthony


Heald, Oliver
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hendry, Charles
Nicholls, Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Norris, Steve


Horam, John
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Ottaway, Richard


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Page, Richard


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Paice, James


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Patnick, Irvine


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunter, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jack, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rathbone, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rendel, David


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Richards, Rod


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Riddick, Graham


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robathan, Andrew


Key, Robert
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


King, Rt Hon Torn
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kirkwood, Archy
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Knapman, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knox, Sir David
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sackville, Tom


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Legg, Barry
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Leigh, Edward
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lidington, David
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lord, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Luff, Peter
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Soames, Nicholas


Lynne, Ms Liz
Speed, Sir Keith


McCrea, Rev William
Spencer, Sir Derek


MacKay, Andrew
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Maclean, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spink, Dr Robert


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spring, Richard


Madel, Sir David
Sproat, Iain


Maginnis, Ken
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malone, Gerald
Steen, Anthony






Stephen, Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Stern, Michael
Walden, George


Stewart, Allan
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Streeter, Gary
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sumberg, David
Wallace, James


Sweeney, Walter
Waller, Gary


Sykes, John
Ward, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Watts, John


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Whitney, Ray


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Thomason, Roy
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilkinson, John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Willetts, David


Thurnham, Peter
Wilshire, David


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Tracey, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Tredinnick, David
Wood, Timothy


Trend, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Trimble, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Trotter, Neville



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tyler, Paul
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Vaughan, Sir Gerard





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cox, Tom


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cryer, Bob


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cummings, John


Allen, Graham
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dalyell, Tam


Armstrong, Hilary
Darling, Alistair


Austin-Walker, John
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barron, Kevin
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Battle, John
Denham, John


Bayley, Hugh
Dewar, Donald


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dixon, Don


Bell, Stuart
Donohoe, Brian H.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dowd, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bermingham, Gerald
Enright, Derek


Berry, Dr. Roger
Etherington, Bill


Betts, Clive
Fatchett, Derek


Blunkett, David
Faulds, Andrew


Boateng, Paul
Fisher, Mark


Boyes, Roland
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Keith
Fraser, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Galloway, George


Burden, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Byers, Stephen
Garrett, John


Caborn, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Callaghan, Jim
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Canavan, Dennis
Gordon, Mildred


Cann, Jamie
Graham, Thomas


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grocott, Bruce


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gunnell, John


Coffey, Ann
Hain, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Hall, Mike


Connarty, Michael
Hanson, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hardy, Peter


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Corbett, Robin
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Henderson, Doug


Corston, Ms Jean
Heppell, John


Cousins, Jim
Hill, Keith (Streatham)





Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Paul


Home Robertson, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoyle, Doug
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Patchett, Terry


Hutton, John
Pickthall, Colin


Ingram, Adam
Pike, Peter L.


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Janner, Greville
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prescott, John


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jowell, Tessa
Radice, Giles


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Alan
Redmond, Martin


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Reid, Dr John


Khabra, Piara S.
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lewis, Terry
Rogers, Allan


Litherland, Robert
Rooney, Terry


Livingstone, Ken
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ruddock, Joan


Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


McAllion, John
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCartney, Ian
Short, Clare


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


McGrady, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McKelvey, William
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


McMaster, Gordon
Smith, Liew (Blaenau Gwent)


McNamara, Kevin
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mahon, Alice
Steinberg, Gerry


Mallon, Seamus
Stevenson, George


Mandelson, Peter
Stott, Roger


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martlew, Eric
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Maxton, John
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Meacher, Michael
Walley, Joan


Meale, Alan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michael, Alun
Wareing, Robert N


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Watson, Mike


Milburn, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Miller, Andrew
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Winnick, David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Worthington, Tony


Morgan, Rhodri
Wray, Jimmy


Morley, Elliot
Wright, Dr Tony


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)



Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tellers for the Noes:


Mowlam, Marjorie
Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Dennis Turner.


Mudie, George



Mullin, Chris

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 130 (Select Committees related to government departments) be amended, by leaving out lines 5 to 8, and in the Table after the entry relating to National Heritage, by inserting the words—




"9A Northern Northern Ireland Affairs
Northern Ireland Office; administration and Ireland Affairs expenditure of the Crown Solicitor's Office (but excluding individual cases and advice given by the Crown Solicitor); and other matters within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (but excluding the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of the Direct or of Public Prosecutions, Northern Ireland and the drafting of legislation by the Office of the Legislative Counsel).
13
4"

DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question on the other motion requiring to be decided at that hour.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 99 (Northern Ireland Committee) be amended, in line 2 and in line 15, in each case after the word 'Ireland' by inserting the word `Grand'.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

PETITION

Religious Education in Schools

Mr. Neville Trotter: I have the honour to present a petition to the honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled in the name of Mrs. Jane Cooper and hundreds of my constituents and a total of more than 4,000 people throughout the north-east of England.
The humble petition of the residents of the north-east of England sheweth that the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority has produced proposals that advocate as the norm the teaching of three non-Christian faiths by the age of 11, which, in view of young children's limited capacity to understand even Christianity, is educationally unsound, will result in confusion in young children's minds and will inevitably trivialise all faiths.
The petitioners are concerned that primary school children should be given a thorough grounding in the Christian faith. Only 3 per cent. of the population adhere to a non-Christian faith. To teach non-Christian faiths to children under the age of 11 only confuses them. The place for such teaching is the secondary school. The petitioners welcome the recent advice from the Secretary of State that Christianity should predominate at every stage of religious education. They therefore call on him to instruct the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority to bring forward proposals to ensure that the new model syllabuses for religious education concentrate on the basics of Christianity for infant and junior school children.
The petition concludes:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Education to direct the said authority to bring forward sensible proposals requiring the concentration on Christian traditions in the primary school so that young people come to understand something of the faith and values which have shaped our nation's culture, laws and institutions and created the proper tolerance and protection for the 3 per cent. of the population who adhere to a non-Christian faith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Psychiatric Killings (Doncaster)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Sir Harold Walker: I welcome this opportunity to raise certain tragic events that occurred in my constituency—events that caused widespread concern and deep grief; events to which the Secretary of State's response has been wholly inadequate.
On 30 March 1991 Carol Barratt was in the Frenchgate shopping centre in Doncaster, where she threatened a young lady with a knife. She was arrested, and later, following an assessment by a police surgeon, an approved social worker and the duty psychiatrist, was admitted to the psychiatric unit at the Doncaster royal infirmary under a section of the Mental Health Act 1983.
During her admission she appealed against her detention to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, but her appeal was turned down. Despite this, on 14 April the responsible medical officer—a Dr. Silvester—discharged her from her section of the Mental Health Act and she walked out of the hospital. Two days later—on 16 April —Carol Barratt went to the Frenchgate shopping centre and stabbed to death little Emma Brodie, an 11-year-old schoolgirl whose parents kept a nearby public house. The parents have not recovered from the shock and grief, and probably never will.
That such an appalling tragedy in such circumstances could occur was greeted first with total disbelief and then with furled anger in my constituency. The report of the fact-finding committee that was subsequently set up by the Trent regional health authority said that the responsible medical officer's decision to terminate her section
constituted a serious error of clinical judgment".
That severe indictment was expressed in even stronger terms by other people, particularly when it was learnt that Carol Barratt had also attacked a visitor during her detention prior to the killing.
The fact finding committee's report also contains the extraordinary statement:
although her responsible medical officer realised her dangerousness he nevertheless decided to discharge her from Section. In doing so he expressed the hope that the police would then get involved which could allow for more long-term detention of Carol to be arranged".
In other words, he thought, "Let her out; she is bound to do something bad and then we can have her back inside again." It is incredible, but that, as it turned out, is exactly what happened—with such terrible consequences for poor little Emma Brodie.
It is more incredible that the responsible medical officer could not take the trouble to attend the mental health tribunal, which, on 11 April, said of Carol Barratt:
She needs supervision and should not be released from the Section." '
Just how serious an error of clinical judgment occurred in the case can be fully measured only when viewed in the context of the report of the fact finding committee. The committee did a good job within its terms of reference and I pay tribute to its members for their much-valued work, but they suffered a serious handicap. The committee was set up by the Trent regional health authority.
Understandably, following the tragedy the little girl's father, Mr. Brodie, sought redress at law. For all I know, he may still be pursuing legal action—an action in which the


same Trent regional health authority would certainly be joined, as the employer of the psychiatrist at the time that he made the fateful decision. An inquiry mounted by an organisation that needed to protect itself could not command the confidence of the public or anyone else— least of all anyone who might need the services of the psychiatry unit of the Doncaster royal infirmary.
I do not question the professional competence or the probity of those people who conducted the inquiry on behalf of the regional health authority, but their conclusions would have commanded greater support and confidence if they had been seen to be totally independent instead of appearing to act on behalf of an organisation with a vested interest in the outcome.
I pressed for an independent inquiry. For some other people that was not sufficient; they wanted a public inquiry. Those people who wanted a public inquiry, oddly enough, included the very Dr. Silvester who was responsible for the serious error of clinical judgment. I press for an independent inquiry. I do not want nurses grilled in public, but I think that we need to get at the facts of the matter. So far, I have pressed in vain.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and other hon. Members will recall the tragic Beverley Allitt case. How was the inquiry into that case conducted? The Secretary of State for Health set up what she described properly as an "independent" inquiry headed by a distinguished Queen's Counsel, Mr. Cecil Clothier. If she could do that in the Beverley A llitt case, why could not she do that in the Carol Barratt case?
The Secretary of State said that she had intervened because of the "unprecedented scale and magnitude" of the Allitt case, but the House knows that one does not multiply grief. It is not magnified by numbers; it is total to the individual or the family that has suffered.
I call again tonight for a thorough, wide-ranging, independent inquiry into the circumstances that led to the death of Emma Brodie.
Perhaps hon. Members are wondering what disciplinary action was taken against the psychiatrist who committed that serious error of clinical judgment. He was sent for a course of training, which is now completed, and he is now back in a senior post with the Doncaster Health Care trust. I should add, before I pass on to other matters, that the fact finding committee paid a deserved tribute to the staff of the unit by referring to
a dedicated and enthusiastic staff giving good enlightened care ' to their patients".
I now turn to a rather different, but no less sad, case —the tragic death of Mr. Peter Savage. Mr. Savage was a patient in a general medical ward at the Doncaster royal infirmary. On 10 June 1993. he was fatally stabbed by another patient.
Once more, I pressed for an independent inquiry, but what we got was an internal inquiry led by Mr. Philip Gill, the retired former coroner of West Yorkshire. Again, I raise no question concerning Mr. Gill's probity or professional competence; but, as he himself pointed out in the introduction to his subsequent report, he was required not to investigate the circumstances leading to Mr. Savage's death. Instead, he was given the following terms of reference:
To review the admission, investigation and treatment of confused patients in acute health care settings in order to ensure the safety of services locally.
I have no complaint about the way in which Mr. Gill conducted his inquiry—nor do I question his subsequent

recommendations. But it was not the right inquiry. Why cannot there be an independent inquiry into the circumstances of Mr. Peter Savage's death? Again, I emphasise "independent". because Mr. Gill's inquiry was commissioned by the Doncaster royal infirmary and Montagu hospital national health service trust, the body responsible for the management of the unit in which Mr. Savage was killed.
Perhaps the Minister will say that the police investigation looked into the circumstances of the death. But the police were mainly or only concerned with factors that were relevant to a successful prosecution of the mentally disturbed man who did the killing. Questions that might touch upon the responsibilities of the hospital authorities in this matter would almost certainly have been outside their inquiries.
By way of contrast with the manner in which these matters have been dealt with in Doncaster, may I finally refer to the "Report of the Inquiry into the Care and Treatment of Christopher Clunis"? I have no intention of getting involved in the substance of that case, except to draw attention to the strong parallels with the killing of Emma Brodie, of which, in outline, it was almost a carbon copy. Christopher Clunis was a man with a history of mental disorder and psychiatric treatment who, without any apparent reason, stabbed to death a member of the public, Jonathan Zito, on 17 December 1992.
Although the subsequent inquiry was set up by the North East Thames and South East Thames regional health authorities, the report published late last month—just a couple of weeks ago—reflects a significantly more open and thorough approach than that of Trent region to which I referred earlier. Take the terms of reference for a start: there is no nonsense here about not inquiring into the circumstances that led to the person's death.
The inquiry, headed by Mrs. Jean Ritchie QC, was required first, to investigate all the circumstances surrounding the admission, treatment, discharge and continuing care of Christopher Clunis between May 1992 and December 1992; secondly, to identify any deficiencies in the quality and delivery of that care, as well as inter-agency collaboration and individual responsibilities; and, thirdly, to make recommendations for the future delivery of care including admission, treatment, discharge and continuing care to people in similar circumstances so that, as far as possible, harm to patients and the public is avoided. Why did we not have similar broad-ranging, far-reaching terms of reference for the cases in my constituency—and we certainly did not?
Mrs. Ritchie's committee of inquiry received evidence, written and oral, from a variety of experts, professional bodies and organisations and other interested parties. It received evidence from 143 witnesses. Those involved went out in pursuit of evidence—among other things, visiting Rampton hospital. They heard evidence from members of the public. All the witnesses are listed in the report, which runs to nearly 150 pages.
The Ritchie inquiry did an outstanding job of work and produced an excellent report. It deserves the thanks not only of the authorities that commissioned it but of all who care about mental disorders, not least those who suffer from them. I hope that its many recommendations are implemented and that its valuable lessons are learnt. I deeply regret that similar inquiries were not set up in those analogous Doncaster tragedies that I have described. If they had been, Mrs. Ritchie's task would have been lighter


or perhaps even unnecessary. My constituents in Doncaster want to know why there have been thorough in-depth inquiries into cases in some parts of the country, but not in others—at least not in Doncaster.
The Allitt case received proper scrutiny on the initiative of the Secretary of State. There was a thoroughly professional inquiry in the Clunis case but in south Yorkshire, different and lesser standards seem to apply. It is not good enough and the Secretary of State should take steps to enable my constituents to feel that they will receive that to which they are entitled: equity of treatment and parity of care.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Sir H. Walker) for allowing me a few minutes to speak in his Adjournment debate. I shall try to be as brief as possible because I am keen, as is my right hon. Friend, to hear the Minister's response.
Like my right hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the nursing staff in the Doncaster health care services. Under no circumstances should any blame for what has occurred be placed on nursing staff. Put purely and simply, the blame lies with bad management at health authority and regional health authority levels.
There has been a catalogue of disasters in Doncaster. The case involving the brain-damaged babies, the Silvester case and the Peter Savage case have been outlined very well by my right hon. Friend. As he pointed out, there has not been a public inquiry nor even an independent inquiry. Why should Doncaster be any different? Rightly, there was an independent inquiry into the Clunis case and its findings have been widely welcomed.
There has been a whitewash in each of the Doncaster cases. Internal inquiries were not open to public scrutiny. There was merely an audit of procedures to examine the brain-damaged babies case. Something different needs to be done. While the audit was welcome, it did not tackle the supposed problems that affected those babies.
Trent regional health authority set up another internal inquiry to examine the Silvester case. To add insult to injury, the doctor involved still works in Doncaster. Another internal inquiry was set up in the Peter Savage case. It amounted to an audit of procedures. In no way, shape or form did that inquiry even try to deal with what happened in the Peter Savage case or what went wrong —the inquiry was merely an audit of procedures.
Like my right hon. Friend, I believe that that is not good enough. Both Trent regional health authority and Doncaster health authority have failed miserably in their duties to the Doncaster public.
I have corresponded with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), on the matter, raised it in parliamentary questions and even met the Minister to discuss it. I told him that the issue would not go away until it had been properly dealt with.
There has been and will continue to be local media coverage of and attention to the problem. I understand that the BBC is putting together a documentary film on the issue. A letter was sent to one of the shops in the Doncaster Frenchgate centre, where young Emma Brodie was

tragically stabbed. It gives details of the filming at the Frenchgate centre on Sunday 6 March 1994—last Sunday —and continues:
The filming is for Crime Limited a BBC 1 programme … in our forthcoming series".
That is a short quote from a very long letter.
When will the Minister understand that the people of Doncaster demand public scrutiny of all the cases that I mentioned? Even Dr. Silvester has said that he would welcome a public inquiry. I quote from an article in the Yorkshire Post on 23 June 1993:
He insisted lay members of the panel were not qualified to hear the case and said he would welcome a public inquiry to set the record straight.
Will the Minister now agree to a public inquiry, or even the independent inquiry that my right hon. Friend asked for, so that justice can be seen to be done in the Doncaster health care services?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): May I first say what a pleasure it is to respond to a debate initiated by the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Sir H. Walker). It is the first time that I have had the pleasure of doing so. He is, of course, a well-respected Member of the House. I congratulate him on securing the time to debate the issue of the mental health services in Doncaster and the tragic cases to which he referred. I acknowledge the contribution made by the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes).
All hon. Members will join in conveying our deep sympathy to the families and friends of Emma Brodie and Peter Savage, whose lives have been shattered by these tragedies. I am aware of the personal links that the right hon. Gentleman has with one of those families. The death of a loved one is always traumatic and difficult to come to terms with, but especially so under sudden and violent circumstances.
The proposal this evening is that there should be an inquiry into psychiatric killings in Doncaster. The right hon. Gentleman asked for an independent inquiry and specifically ruled out a public inquiry. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North preferred to ask for a public inquiry, although he said that he would accept an independent inquiry. Nevertheless, an inquiry has been asked for. The right hon. Gentleman cited the murders of Emma Brodie in 1991 and Peter Savage in 1993 as evidence for that.
In point of fact, I have to say that both tragic murders have been the subject not only of lengthy police investigation and judicial trials but of independent investigations set up by Trent regional health authority and the Doncaster royal infirmary and Montagu Hospital NHS trust respectively. In addition, the health advisory service has been investigating mental health services in Doncaster. That may be partly the answer to the right hon. Gentleman. Its report is due shortly.
In the case of Emma Brodie, Trent RHA established an independent committee of inquiry in April 1991 to look at the admission, care, treatment and discharge of her assailant, Carol Ann Barratt. The committee was chaired by Cyril Unwin, a former trade union member of Trent RHA and a justice of the peace, assisted by Dr. Dennis Morgan, consult psychiatrist at Queen Elizabeth hospital, King's Lynn, and Brian Smith, a Mental Health Act commissioner.
In its report, the committee made a number of recommendations. It recommended, for example, that the consultant psychiatrist—to whom the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend referred—who authorised Carol Barratt's release should undergo a substantial period of supervised retraining outside the district. As a result, he was moved to Leicestershire district health authority in June 1992. The period of retraining ended, as the right hon. Gentleman said, at the beginning of January 1993.
But the RHA did not let the matter rest there. At its authority meeting in January 1993, Trent RHA considered the report of the doctor's supervising consultant during his retraining period and authorised his return to work only under certain conditions, including continuing supervision and training.
In the case of Peter Savage, Doncaster royal infirmary trust asked Mr. Philip Gill, the former coroner from west Yorkshire, who retired in August 1993, to conduct an independent inquiry into the admission, investigation and treatment of confused patients in acute health care settings to ensure the safety of the services locally.
The scope of the inquiry was announced on 6 October 1993 after extensive consultation with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and my Department so that neither the defence nor prosecution were put in jeopardy. I am sure that that will be well understood. The inquiry's terms of reference were communicated to Members of Parliament representing Doncaster constituencies, to Mr. Savage's family, to the press and to the Department of Health; again, no objections were raised at the time.
The inquiry's report makes a total of 11 recommendations involving three categories—training, liaison psychiatry and guidelines. The recommendations that could be implemented immediately have already been acted on; others are subject to detailed consultation with clinicians at a national level, to ensure that the trust implements a policy that accords with best clinical practice.
Although Mr. Gill's inquiry did not report on the specific event of Mr. Savage's death, it did consider procedures for patients admitted with symptoms similar to those displayed by Mr. Savage's killer, Keith Emmerson.

Sir Harold Walker: The Minister said that, at the time when the Gill inquiry's terms of reference were announced, no objections were voiced. That was because we assumed at the time that, within those terms of reference, Mr. Gill would have an opportunity to do what he subsequently said that he was required not to do.
When the terms of reference were published, they contained no statement that Mr. Gill would not be required to look into the circumstances of Mr. Savage's death; and I for one had assumed that his terms of reference would allow him to do just that. It now seems that we were wrong. Perhaps Mr. Gill, or I, did not understand what the terms of reference meant, but the fact remains that the circumstances of Mr. Savage's death have not been inquired into. Why can they not be inquired into?

Mr. Bowis: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is acknowledging that the terms of reference were brought to his attention, to the family's attention and so on. As he said, he did not understand that that excluded looking into the specific details.
In fact, I think it fair to say that it did not. In the course of his inquiry, Mr. Gill interviewed all the main witnesses

to the event, and the people responsible for Mr. Emmerson's care. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, he also interviewed Mrs. Savage, in the presence of her legal adviser.
It is important to understand that Mr. Emmerson had never shown any signs of psychiatric disorders before and had never been in touch with any psychiatric service in Doncaster. He was admitted to hospital via the accident and emergency department, where he had presented himself, showing signs of confusion which at that stage could have been the result of a medical condition such as epilepsy: that is why he was placed on a medical ward, so that the exact nature of his condition could be established.
I understand that a number of valuable lessons have been learnt as a result of Mr. Gill's inquiry. For example, staff from the accident and emergency department, the transit ward and the medical ward have now been trained to assess patients with possible psychiatric conditions. More staff will undertake such training over the coming months. There are now better links between the psychiatric unit and the acute hospital and nurse practitioners in the psychiatric unit can be called on by the accident and emergency department for advice and help.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Member for Doncaster, North, for their comments about the nursing staff in the hospitals. I am sure that all concerned will note those comments with gratitude.
As with the case of Emma Brodie, this case was investigated fully by the police before the trial of Keith Emmerson. An independent investigation has already reported, and I cannot see that anything would be gained from a further inquiry that has not already been obtained by the reports that we, and the health authority, have already received.
I understand that the chief executive of the Doncaster Royal Infirmary trust, Mr. David Nicholson, has recently been in touch with Mrs. Savage to answer her detailed and specific questions about the time leading up to and immediately after her husband's death. She has also been made aware of the action taken by the trust to minimise the possibility of such a tragedy's ever happening again. I believe that Mr. Nicholson has offered Mrs. Savage a chance to meet him and the staff involved in the care of her husband if she needs any further information or explanation.
The right hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members from Doncaster and the surrounding constituencies, may recall that the Secretary of State for Health told the House in July 1993 that the Health Advisory Service would review mental health services in Doncaster. The right hon. Gentleman may take some comfort from that. The work is now complete and the results will be published shortly.
Carol Ann Barratt made her fatal attack on Emma Brodie shortly after her release from hospital. That was in 1991 and, since then, we have introduced the care programme approach which is intended to cover all patients being considered for discharge from mental illness hospitals and all new patients accepted by specialist psychiatric services. The needs of each patient for continuing health and social care and accommodation should be systematically assessed and effective systems should be put in place to ensure that agreed health and, where necessary, social care services, are provided to those patients who can be treated in the community. Explicit, individually tailored care programmes are drawn up and a


key worker is identified to keep in close touch with the patient and ensure that the agreed package of health and social care is being delivered.
The best safeguards for patients and the public are still professional judgment, co-operation between services and a proper understanding of the powers that are available under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the limits that it imposes. That is why, in the case of Emma Brodie, it was right for the regional health authority to specify certain conditions under which this particular professional is able to practise.
I am sure the right hon. Member will join me in welcoming the action of Trent regional health authority and Doncaster district health authority in asking the Health Advisory Service to conduct the review of mental health service provision in the Doncaster area. It clearly demonstrates a commitment to securing the safety of the

public and the best possible service for the mentally ill. I understand that the team will be making recommendations to local health authorities about future psychiatric provision.
I join the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Doncaster, North in expressing gratitude to all those who work in the medical and nursing professions and in voluntary organisations who do so much for mentally ill people. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the right hon. Member. I share his determination to ensure that high-quality treatment and care is available to mentally ill people, on a national level and locally in Doncaster, and that we learn from the experiences of past tragedies for the benefit of the patients and the local community. I believe that that is the best answer for the families of Emma Brodie and Peter Savage.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Ten o'clock.